Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
While most bankruptcy practitioners are familiar with the basic concepts behind the Rule 2004 exam, some are less familiar with the procedural intricacies of obtaining, conducting, and responding to the exam ' intricacies that often involve practices and procedures adapted from civil discovery that are beyond the scope of pure bankruptcy practice. This article explains.
Features
Attention, forum shoppers! The Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York, long known for its ability and willingness to handle large and complex business reorganizations with (even tangential) connections to New York as the 'financial capital of the world,' recently granted a motion filed by a group of creditors to transfer venue to California.
Recently, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware enforced subordination provisions against certain out-of-the-money subordinated noteholders. The latter had asserted that the so-called 'x-clause' in the indenture provided them with a right to recovery under the plan of reorganization despite the fact that the senior noteholders would not be paid in full. The decision is significant for several reasons ...
Features
One of the greatest opportunities for immediate improvement in the practice of matrimonial law lies in the cultivation of the binocular mindset. Binocularity involves the balancing of the settlement mindset with the trial mindset. This balancing occurs even in situations in which the practicing attorney has no intention of ever going to trial.
Recent happenings of interest to you and your practice.
Features
The U.S. Supreme Court in February tackled an issue that has come up frequently in lawsuits brought by plaintiffs claiming they've been injured by medical devices: Do the Medical Device Amendments of 1976 preempt state law-based claims against device manufacturers? The Court had partially answered the question in <i>Lohr v. Medtronic</i>, but the fact situation in that case did not necessarily make its decision applicable to other cases against medical devices manufacturers.
Last month, we discussed the fact that a recent decision by the California Court of Appeal explores the relationship between the doctrine of informed consent and the intentional tort of battery. The case was <i>Saxena v Goffney</i>. This is the conclusion of that discussion.