The crisis in the subprime mortgage markets has brought to light many allegations of predatory practices by mortgage lenders and other participants in the housing industry. In <i>Barkley v. Olympia Mortgage Co.</i>, Judge Raymond Dearie of the Eastern District approved a strategy that might permit some victims of the alleged fraud to obtain a federal forum, with the possibility of treble damages and attorneys fees: allege (and prove) that the predatory practices constituted a form of racial discrimination.
The law concerning the custody rights of biological parents is complex and continually evolving and, along with that, the rights of non-biological parents are also in flux. Within the basic framework that supports the superior custodial rights of a biological parent, there may be many misconceptions and uncertainties about what set of facts may support custody for a non-parent. The implications of a non-parent having long-term de facto custody and the effect of a prior order of custody have been addressed in recent court decisions.
Mediation participants would be far more circumspect if they thought their discussions and disclosures could be used against them in a later judicial proceeding. With this in mind, let's consider the potential impact of a recent case in which the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, determined that a confidentiality clause in a divorcing couple's mediation agreement need not preclude the mediator from being compelled to give testimony in their subsequent divorce action.
Separation agreements in matrimonial actions often contain provisions prohibiting oral modification or waiver of their terms. These provisions usually contain language to the effect that 'no modifications, waiver or termination of any of the terms of this stipulation shall be valid unless in writing and executed with the same formality as this agreement.' Despite such language, are there any possible scenarios under which the terms of such an agreement can be modified or waived without a written agreement? The answer may surprise you.
With trillions of dollars to keep watch over, the last thing we need is the distraction of costly litigation brought on by patent assertion entities (PAEs or "patent trolls"), companies that don't make any products but instead seek royalties by asserting their patents against those who do make products.
“Baseball arbitration” refers to the process used in Major League Baseball in which if an eligible player's representative and the club ownership cannot reach a compensation agreement through negotiation, each party enters a final submission and during a formal hearing each side — player and management — presents its case and then the designated panel of arbitrators chooses one of the salary bids with no other result being allowed. This method has become increasingly popular even beyond the sport of baseball.
Insiders (and others) in the private equity business are accustomed to seeing a good deal of discussion ' academic and trade ' on the question of the appropriate methods of valuing private equity positions and securities which are otherwise illiquid. An interesting recent decision in the Southern District has been brought to our attention. The case is <i>In Re Allied Capital Corp.</i>, CCH Fed. SEC L. Rep. 92411 (US DC, S.D.N.Y., Apr. 25, 2003). Judge Lynch's decision is well written, the Judge reviewing a motion to dismiss by a business development company, Allied Capital, against a strike suit claiming that Allied's method of valuing its portfolio failed adequately to account for i) conditions at the companies themselves and ii) market conditions. The complaint appears to be, as is often the case, slap dash, content to point out that Allied revalued some of its positions, marking them down for a variety of reasons, and the stock price went down - all this, in the view of plaintiff's counsel, amounting to violations of Rule 10b-5.
The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
While the DOJ Civil Cyber-Fraud Initiative is still in its early stages and cybersecurity regulations are evolving, whistleblower plaintiffs have already begun leveraging the FCA to pursue alleged noncompliance with government cybersecurity requirements.
