The defendant "was a 'mere conduit' of [a] fraudulent transfer and cannot be liable to the bankruptcy estate for funds she never knew about," held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in In re BICOM N.Y., LLC.
Copyright Standing and Fifth Circuit Trade Dress Factors
Class Certification Appropriate for Claim of Improper Deregulation
Merger and acquisition activity across the CRE spectrum is likely to continue to be high, though deals will likely be concentrated across the industrial and residential sectors, according to Deloitte.
Nashville Federal Court Decides Spotify CEO Daniel Ek Must Sit for Deposition in Copyright Licensing Dispute Over Streaming of Eminem Songs
Section 22-1005 of the New York City Administrative Code provides relief for individuals who guaranteed commercial leases when the tenant defaulted as a result of government orders issued during the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic. In recent months, however, litigation has emerged about the scope of that relief.
Questions of Fact Remain About Whether Landlord Had Released Corporate Tenant from Liability Yellowstone Injunction Does Not Require Proof of Likelihood of Success Guaranty Expired With Tenant's Initial Lease Term Illegal Use Does Not Preclude Rent Stabilization Status Guarantor Immunity Does Not Apply to Pre-COVID Breaches Class Certification Appropriate for Claim of Improper Deregulation
Statements By Condo Board Members Cloaked In Common Interest Privilege Shareholder Entitled to Maintenance Abatement for Breach of Warranty of Habitability
Deference to Trial Court's Determination on Mortgage Priority No Broker Commission for Sale After Expiration of Tail Period Co-Owner Who Did Not Execute Mortgage Not Subject to Equitable Lien By Mortgagee Insufficient Evidence of Delay to Support Laches Defense Against Claim to Set Aside Deed As a Forgery Statements Did Not Defeat Hostility In Adverse Possession Claim
In June 2021, the Supreme Court ruled in U.S. v. Arthrex that the statutory scheme appointing Patent Trial and Appeal Board administrative patent judges to adjudicate IPRs violates the appointments clause of the U.S. Constitution. Specifically, the Court concluded that because APJ decisions in IPR proceedings are not reviewable by a presidentially appointed and Senate-confirmed officer, such determinations are not compatible with the powers of inferior officers. The PTO later decided that it would not accept requests for director review of institution decisions. This policy is now also being questioned in Arthrex's wake.
