Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Emergence from bankruptcy presents a series of challenges for debtor companies, their creditors and counsel for all interested parties. One of the most significant challenges is financial reporting.
Due to a number of forces, most importantly the global recession and the resulting global macroeconomic conditions, creditor committees are now having difficulty in finding their role in many Chapter 11 cases. Many factors, including rapid declines in asset values, means that many secured lenders find themselves holding loans that are vastly under-collateralized.
To the surprise of many, when General Growth Properties Inc. ("GGP") commenced a Chapter 11 proceeding in April 2009, it caused 166 solvent bankruptcy remote entities that were current on all their indebtedness (the "General Growth SPEs") that each owned a single mall property to also file Chapter 11 petitions.
Recordings of these husband/paramour and mother/child conversations are inadmissible in court because they are the fruit of what, under New York law, is criminal eavesdropping ' none of the parties to the conversations have consented to the recording. However, sound recordings of relevant events are admissible in evidence as long as a proper foundation is laid.
Traditional attorney immunity to suits by non-clients is under a new line of attack that threatens to vitiate the general rule. The threat is exemplified by a recent insurance-related decision of the Arizona Court of Appeals, <i>Chalpin v. Snyder</i>, wherein the court largely ignored the customary exceptions and permitted non-clients to pursue causes of action against attorneys for aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duty by their client.
Features
Highlights of the latest intellectual property news from around the country.
During the existing economic downturn, there has been much litigation seeking downward modification of support orders in New York. This two-part article discusses the trend in New York and other states to deny downward modifications.
The Florida Supreme Court recently ruled that false light invasion of privacy is not a valid cause of action in Florida, opting instead for a new claim titled "defamation by implication."