Features
The Martin Act and Common Law Fraud
In <i>Kerusa LLC v. W10Z/515 Real Estate Limited Partnership</i>, the Court of Appeals resolved a question that has plagued the Appellate Divisions over the past several years: May a co-op or condominium purchaser prevail on a common law fraud claim based on material omissions from offering plan amendments mandated by the Martin Act?
Features
Decisions of Interest
Recent rulings of interest to you and your practice.
Features
Legal Issues Swell if Swine Flu Spreads
Just one week into the swine flu outbreak, health authorities in Baltimore detained 117 passengers on a flight from Cancun, Mexico. And Texas, Maryland and New York officials closed schools. Although the flu strain isn't an official pandemic yet, state and local officials are already flexing legal muscles ' many for the first time.
Features
The Autism Cases
In last month's issue, we discussed the Vaccine Court's (Office of Special Masters of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims) trio of decisions that found no causative links between childhood vaccinations and the onset of autism and gastrointestinal problems in three children. The discussion continues herein.
Features
Polio Victim's 30-Year Crusade Garners $22.5 Million Award
Filed in 1981, <i>Tenuto v. Lederle Laboratories</i> is the oldest ongoing non-guardianship case in New York City, according to the Office of Court Administration. Now there's an award. But will it stand?
Features
Bankruptcy Court Cannot Surcharge Credit Bidding Asset Buyer with Expenses of Sale
Explaining that the "bankruptcy court had no jurisdiction to take such action," the Fifth Circuit also vacated the district's court's improper ruling that the bankruptcy judge could enter a personal judgment against the asset buyer.
Features
Considerations of Examiner Appointments in Bankruptcy Actions
Examiner appointments in Chapter 11 bankruptcy cases are uncommon, and despite Judge Peter J. Walsh's statement that he had appointed an examiner only two or three times during his career as a bankruptcy judge, he recently ordered the appointment of an examiner in <i>In re DBSI, Inc.</i>
Need Help?
- Prefer an IP authenticated environment? Request a transition or call 800-756-8993.
- Need other assistance? email Customer Service or call 1-877-256-2472.
MOST POPULAR STORIES
- Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright LawsThis article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.Read More ›
- The Article 8 Opt InThe Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.Read More ›
- Warehouse Liability: Know Before You Stow!As consumers continue to shift purchasing and consumption habits in the aftermath of the pandemic, manufacturers are increasingly reliant on third-party logistics and warehousing to ensure their products timely reach the market.Read More ›
- The Anti-Assignment Override ProvisionsUCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?Read More ›
- The Stranger to the Deed RuleIn 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.Read More ›