Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Recent rulings of importance to you and your practice.
After three years of meetings and discussions not only with title companies, but also with other players in the real property industry such as lenders, realtors and government regulators, ALTA revised its 1992 forms in 2006. On Nov. 8, 2006, TIRSA filed with the Insurance Department for approval to issue the 2006 ALTA forms in New York. On March 5, 2007, the Insurance Department approved the issuance of the new 2006 forms in New York, effective May 1, 2007. The 2006 forms contain many changes from the 1992 forms with which New York real estate practitioners have grown very much acquainted. Most of the changes are rather technical and most real estate attorneys will not encounter them in their day-to-day operations. However, there are five (5) significant changes of which real estate practitioners should be aware.
Features
Being one of a client's go-to law firms used to be a pretty secure situation. But gone are the days of lifelong client loyalties. In fact, disloyalty is increasingly the norm according to the BTI Consulting Group's latest survey of clients ' a situation that creates challenges and opportunities for savvy firms.
Features
A complete list of the cases analyzed in this issue.
Features
As bankruptcy practitioners awaited the enactment and effective date of the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 ('BAPCPA'), the multitude of speaking panels, journals, and cocktail conversations offering their speculative commentary on the anticipated effects of the amendments to Title 11 paid increased attention to the proposed amendments' effects on the remedies afforded to creditors under ' 303 of the Bankruptcy Code ' namely the involuntary bankruptcy petition.
Beginning in the fall of 2004, partners in Dallas-based Jenkens & Gilchrist who left the firm also left behind their capital contributions, which in some cases totaled hundreds of thousands of dollars, due to the firm's 'contingent liabilities.'
This article first discusses <i>In re Dana Corp.</i>, 351 B.R. 96 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2006)(<i>'Dana I'</i>), in which the Southern District of New York bankruptcy court denied a debtor's proposed employee 'incentive' program. The article then highlights the differences between the program proposed in <i>Dana I</i> and the program approved by the Southern District of New York in <i>In re Dana Corp.</i>, 2006 WL 3479406 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2006) (<i>'Dana II'</i>). Finally, this article proposes options other than those utilized in the foregoing cases that might be available to bankruptcy practitioners in need of a way to ensure that their clients' top executives do not walk out the door.