Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Features
As a practical matter, the decision of whether to settle claims brought against a policyholder is typically left to the insurer. The interests of the insurer and the policyholder are typically aligned, whether it is because of the policyholder's inherent desire to resolve the litigation, or the insurer's vastly greater experience in defending and settling claims. For claims falling within policy limits, however, there remains an enhanced possibility of a dispute between the policyholder and insurer over whether to settle. All litigation expenses will be borne by the insurer, as will the costs of any judgment. In contrast, continuing the litigation is a nominal cost for the policyholder. The policyholder may also have collateral interests at stake. In the most common of examples, a physician may wish to fight a malpractice claim rather than settle because of the potential damage to his or her professional reputation, a loss of business, an increase in future premiums, the potential termination of the policy, or impairment to his or her ability to obtain future coverage.
In wealthy communities, like Greenwich and Darien, CT, country club membership can take on momentous significance. Nevertheless, the question of whether club membership is marital property has not been settled. A recent case tackled the problem and left it unanswered.
Features
Death, divorce and debt" are the bread and butter of the art and antiques market, as every art world professional knows. Through good times and bad, these life cycle events frequently trigger sales and other transactions. With divorce, however, if emotions are not already present prior to filing papers, the process itself tends to intensify anger and mistrust between opposing sides.
In March of this year, in Part One of this article, we discussed the importance of the initial pendente lite application in introducing the parties to the judge and setting the tone for the balance of the case. The mandate that we provide judges with sound, hard evidence at the <i>pendente lite</i> phase -- in order to enable the courts to deal fairly with both sides pending the submission of final proofs -- was heavily stressed.
National cases for your review.
Features
On April 14, 2005, the Oregon Supreme Court held in <i>Li</i> and <i>Kennedy v. Oregon</i> that the roughly 3000 marriage licenses issued to same-sex couples by Multnomah County are not valid. The Supreme Court's decision may change the obligations and opportunities for employers, depending on the nature of the employer and the decisions the employer has previously made regarding whether or not to treat certain partners of employees as if they were spouses.
Recent rulings of interest to you and your practice.
Features
The U.S. Supreme Court recently issued an important decision concerning the Age Discrimination In Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA). In <i>Smith v. Jackson, Miss.</i>, the Court held that employees aged 40 and over can assert claims for age discrimination under the ADEA based on the disparate impact of a facially neutral employment policy, even in the absence of discriminatory intent on the employers' part. In so doing, the Court reconciled a split in the federal circuit courts of appeal and aligned its view concerning the scope of the ADEA with its view of the scope of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which, according to prior Court decisions, permits employees to allege discrimination because of race, color, religion, sex and national origin based on the disparate impact of a facially neutral employment policy. Because employees located in the geographic areas covered by the federal circuits whose courts of appeal formerly prohibited the assertion of such claims under the ADEA can now assert disparate impact claims under the ADEA, the Smith opinion will likely result in increased litigation under the ADEA in respect of these types of claims.
Features
More than 2 years ago, the Internal Revenue Service published Revenue Ruling 2002-22, 2002-19 I.R.B. 849, in which it held that section 1041 of the Internal Revenue Code governed the transfer of stock options and interests in certain unfunded deferred compensation arrangements to the employee's spouse under a marital property settlement. As a result, the employee spouse was not taxable on the transfer. Instead, the spread on the options (the difference between the value of the employer 's stock at the time of exercise and the striking price) and the amount received as deferred compensation under unfunded arrangements were taxable to the nonemployee spouse in the same way and to the same extent as it would have been taxed to the employee.