Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
'Intimate Relationship' Gives Family Court Jurisdiction over Birth Mother In a case involving a birth mother who allegedly went too far in trying to get her children back from their adoptive mother, Nassau Family Court Judge Julianne S. Eisman determined that Family Court had jurisdiction over the birth mother because her threatening actions constituted a "family offense." M.F. v. K.G. (Family Court, Nassau Cty. 4/1/10) (Eisman, J.). …
Features
In last month's issue, we discussed a decision in in which a Supreme Court judge in Manhattan dismissed a divorced man's suit to recover from his ex-wife half of what he lost by taking investments in Bernard Madoff's Ponzi scheme in their divorce settlement. The discussion concludes herein.
In two recent Second Department cases decided within 30 days of each other, the facts appear similar, yet one case gets the law right, the other gets it completely wrong. While bad law was corrected by the former, it was perpetuated by the latter.
Features
The Eleventh Circuit case <i>In re Delco Oil, Inc. (Marathon Petroleum Co., LLC v. Cohen)</i>, serves as an important reminder for suppliers to monitor a customer's bankruptcy filing and to confirm the rules for doing business before delivering goods to a debtor.
The public outcry driving financial reform may unwittingly create risk retention levels in securitization transactions that will ultimately affect main street's credit costs and severely limit access to credit.
A magistrate for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas has excluded a significant portion of an expert's damages testimony in a suit by book author Michael Baisden alleging that the defendants exceeded the scope of a license to produce stageplays of Baisden's novels <i>The Maintenance Man</i> and <i>Men Cry in the Dark</i>.
Features
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit recently weighed in on the proper measurement of business interruption claims, particularly those following a catastrophic event that affects an entire region or industry.
Directors and officers are exposed to personal loss under the FCPA because not only does the FCPA expressly prohibit corporate indemnification, but also there are several D&O policy provisions that may serve to bar coverage for FCPA-assessed fines and penalties.