Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Features
The U.S. Supreme Court's recent <i>Till</i> decision on the proper cramdown interest rate will disappoint secured lenders. <i>Till v. SCC Credit Corp.</i>, 124 S. Ct. 1951 (2004). As we show below, Till should be limited to its narrow fact pattern, but is still bad news for lenders. They now will be forced to fight an uphill battle to prove that a higher risk premium should be added to the prime rate applicable to their crammed down secured claim. In Till, the plurality accepted a risk adjustment premium in the range of 1% to 3% (Justice Thomas, concurring, could accept no premium at all). Commercial lenders will thus have to overcome Till by showing that they are entitled to a truly "market" interest rate.
It has become conventional wisdom that bankruptcy -- even Chapter 11 -- is now largely a process controlled by secured lenders. Whatever the merits of this view, the undersecured lender is still in an unenviable position as a result of the Supreme Court's holding in <i>Timbers</i> that undersecured creditors who are stayed from foreclosing on their collateral during bankruptcy are not entitled to accrue or collect interest on their claims during the bankruptcy case or otherwise be compensated for their loss.
The definition of what constitutes a "security" has broadened and changed dramatically over the years under both case and statutory law. Attorneys concentrating in securities law (whether by virtue of litigation or transactional work), as well as governmental and self-regulatory organizations, ranging from the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to the National Association of Securities Dealers (NASD) to various exchanges, have been dealing with the increasingly complex question of what constitutes a "security." This question is often posed to resolve particular claims in specialized venues, testing the acumen of even the most sophisticated securities practitioners and industry members. This two-part article describes the transfer process and offers sample forms as examples.
In a decision that caused a stir among the bench and bar, New York State's highest court, the Court of Appeals, sanctioned a highly controversial practice that enables custodial spouses to draw child support twice from the same income stream.
Features
The California Supreme Court is struggling to decide whether state law allows courts to grant visitation rights to grandparents over the objections of parents who have not been declared unfit. There is widespread interest in the case, with <i>amici curiae<i> including the Association of Certified Family Law Specialists, the Coalition for Restoration of Parental Rights, the American Civil Liberties Union and two gay and lesbian groups.
It seems obvious: If you want to know about a litigant's mental state or a child's psychological needs, ask the litigant's or child's therapist. Wrong! There are good reasons not to confuse treating-therapists with expert witnesses. The testimony of treating-therapists rarely contributes to the litigation and calling on the treating-therapist will usually destroy therapy.
Features
A Manhattan Supreme Court justice has ordered a celebrity artist who tried to avoid almost $2 million in legal fees by claiming that his law firm's bills were unethically high to pay up.
Features
Exclusive to online subscribers, more cases and happenings of interest to the e-commerce industry.
Features
National cases of importance to your practice.