LJN Newsletters

  • Official Committee Members: Fiduciary Duty Liability

    Members of official creditors' committees in Chapter 11 cases owe a fiduciary duty to the entire body of unsecured creditors. See Woods v. City National Bank, 312 U.S. 262, 268-69 (1941). As fiduciaries, committee members should have undivided loyalty to those they serve, free of any conflict of interest. Id. The imposition of such a broad duty to unsecured creditors generally might be otherwise unremarkable, except that committee members themselves obviously have significant selfish interests in the outcome of the bankruptcy case.

    February 09, 2004William R. Baldiga and John C. Elstad

  • Professional Fees: How to Get a Bankruptcy Judge's Attention

    How does a bankruptcy professional get the court's attention on fees? Chief Bankruptcy Judge Mary F. Walrath of the District of Delaware answered the question with a detailed 33-page opinion on Dec. 23, 2003. In re Fleming Companies, Inc., et al, 2003 Bankr. LEXIS 1727 (Bankr. D. Del. 2003). Disposing of an objection by the United States Trustee to interim professional fee applications, Judge Walrath said she would "reduce the fees requested by the Debtors' professionals." Id. at 5. Not exactly the kind of attention any lawyer wants.

    February 09, 2004Michael L. Cook

  • Verdicts

    Recent rulings of importance to you and your practice.

    February 09, 2004ALM Staff | Law Journal Newsletters |

  • Med Mal News

    A roundup of news items that may affect your practice.

    February 09, 2004ALM Staff | Law Journal Newsletters |

  • Voir Dire of Expert Witnesses

    Voir dire, or a preliminary cross-examination that takes place prior to the direct examination of an opposing expert's qualifications, is a useful, often under-appreciated, tool to preclude, limit, or discredit expert testimony. We addresses only evidentiary voir dire in this article, not Daubert/Frye hearings regarding the admissibility of scientific evidence.

    February 09, 2004Lawrie E. Demorest and Natalie S. Whiteman

  • Render unto Caesar

    A 70-year-old man was admitted to the hospital for a bowel resection. Following surgery, the patient's condition worsened considerably; He spent months in the ICU on a ventilator, was fed through a gastrostomy tube, and his mental status waned. After some time, it was suspected that his deteriorating condition might be related to sepsis from a bowel perforation. Subsequent surgery confirmed this diagnosis. Attempts to repair the perforation failed, and, ultimately the patient died. Medicare paid the patient's medical bills, which exceeded $500,000. The patient's family commenced a lawsuit, alleging that the surgeon's negligence caused the bowel perforation. During the litigation, the Medicare Trust Fund sent a correspondence to the patient's estate, asserting a claim of reimbursement for the benefits Medicare paid from any recovery that the estate might obtain.

    February 09, 2004William A. Krais

  • A Word to the Wise

    The employment-at-will doctrine is the bane of the plaintiffs' bar. Exceptions under New York law are rare and strictly construed against the employee. More than just a shield, the at-will doctrine has been a seeming impenetrable wall insulating employers from liability. Is there ever an instance where an employee can invoke the at-will doctrine for his or her benefit? Just ask Seth Brody.

    February 09, 2004Alfred G. Feliu

  • Decisions of Interest

    Recent rulings of importance to you and your practice.

    February 09, 2004ALM Staff | Law Journal Newsletters |

  • Spam At Work Gets Another Look

    In our August 2003 issue, Jay Waks and Joshua Abraham reviewed the issue of workplace spam in their article entitled "A New York Perspective on Workplace Spam." Messrs. Waks and Abraham addressed in detail the controversial California Supreme Court decision on the topic that held that an employer had failed to satisfy the harm element in a trespass to chattel action where its former employee "spammed" it with 175,000 emails. Intel Corp. v. Hamidi, 30 Cal.4th 1342 (2003). A New York trial court recently revisited the employee spam issue in the post-Intel landscape. School of Visual Arts v. Kuprewicz, Index No. 115172-03, (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Co. 12/22/03) (Richter, J.). The court's ruling affirms the validity of the Waks-Abraham view of the state on New York law on the troubling topic of workplace spam.

    February 09, 2004ALM Staff | Law Journal Newsletters |