Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Features
Companies in Chapter 11 may have capital structures consisting of multiple tiers of debt and equity that have competing priorities of payment vis-'-vis the company and its assets. The claims and interests of these competing stakeholders may be resolved in a Chapter 11 plan. To emerge from Chapter 11, the company must obtain approval of a plan that deals with all creditor claims and equity interests in accordance with the (sometimes complicated) rules contained in the Bankruptcy Code. In an effort to achieve an agreed-upon Chapter 11 plan, some creditors may give up (or gift) a portion of the recovery to which they would otherwise be entitled to another class of creditors or equity holders.
Features
Restructuring professionals must be acutely aware of potential conflicts of interest. Indeed, federal courts on occasion have disqualified a professional or ordered the disgorgement of the professional's fees in situations where that professional failed to properly disclose a conflict of interest. The importance of conflicts of interest is especially evident in today's global economy, in which restructuring matters routinely involve many of the same parties.
The Second Circuit handed down a key creditors' rights decision on April 1 in <i>Sharp Int'l Corp. v. State Street Bank & Trust Co. (In re Sharp Int'l Corp. & Sharp Sales Corp.)</i>, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 5241(2d Cir. Apr. 1, 2005). The court affirmed the lower courts' finding that a secured lender was not liable for aiding and abetting management's breach of fiduciary duty, and not liable for receiving a $12.25 million loan repayment from a closely held borrower it correctly suspected of engaging in massive fraud. The decision limits the scope of a lender's duties to its borrower and other creditors. Absent the lender's participation in its borrower's fraud, the lender should have no liability on a fraudulent transfer theory or on any other basis, at least in New York, where Sharp arose.
The national settlement of the fen-phen lawsuits was intended, among other things, to help defendant Wyeth, one of the world's largest pharmaceuticals manufacturers, put the lawsuits behind it. However, the number of claimants who opted out of the settlement is huge, and many of their cases are now coming to trial, with mixed results. Recently approved changes to the settlement process are also altering plaintiffs' rights. In short, the last chapter of this epic litigation is a long way from being written. So, what is happening with the fen-phen settlement and litigitions?
Each year, millions of Americans, including some children, suffer non-penetrating, or closed, head injuries. When lawsuits result, they involve complex medical, academic, and legal issues. When the plaintiff is a child, the defense attorney faces numerous additional challenges in defending the matter. Certain discovery tools are necessary to simplify and defend the pediatric traumatic brain injury (TBI) lawsuit. These tools, although also used in traditional personal injury cases, take on added significance because of the age of the plaintiff and the nature of the injury.
Features
The old maxim, "the earlier the treatment, the better the outcome" has been a longtime staple in plaintiffs' collection of so-called "expert medical opinions." Let's face it -- the notion that earlier treatment is preferable, while imprecise, seems like a logical conclusion for most of us. However, the Eleventh Circuit's recent decision in <i>McDowell v. Brown</i>, 392 F.3d 1283 (11th Cir. 2004), establishes that such general medical principles, which are typically based on no more than the expert physician's common-sense and anecdotal experience, are far too speculative to overcome an evidentiary challenge pursuant to <i>Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmeceuticals, Inc.</i>, 509 U.S. 579 (1993) and therefore fail to establish causation in a medical negligence case. This is particularly so in those cases where the defendant medical provider maintains that the plaintiff's unavoidable and unpredictable underlying condition -- and not an alleged delay in treatment -- caused the plaintiff's injury, such that the plaintiff would have experienced the same level of injury despite any alleged delay.