LJN Newsletters

OnJune 19, the U.S. Supreme Court upended years of jurisprudence to hand corporations a gift: a far more stringent definition of specific jurisdiction that will force plaintiffs to bring suit in multiple state courts rather than join their claims to those in far-flung jurisdictions.

Part One of a Two-Part Article

With the preemption issue pretty well teed up, what do the courts say (to date)? A look at one recent ruling.

Commercial landlords with multiple properties, or developments with more than one tenant, are generally loath to disclose to potential tenants the terms of leases into which they have previously entered. So, what happens when a government entity has demanded or been given a lease as part of a governmental process, such as when a landowner is seeking permission to build?

In July 2009, the LyondellBasell Litigation Trustee commenced litigation arising out of the merger of Lyondell and Basell, seeking the recovery of billions of dollars for the benefit of unsecured creditors. And, as Bankruptcy Judge Martin Glenn observed, the Trustee "threw the kitchen sink" at the defendants. Eight years of litigation and two bankruptcy judges later, we have a decision.

CSX Railroad says it will appeal a Savannah, GA, jury verdict of $11.2 million rendered after a six-day trial stemming from the fatal train accident on the set of the film Midnight Rider of which CSX Railroad is required to pay $3.9 million according to the jury's apportionment.

In a recent ruling, the Ninth Circuit held that bankruptcy courts may permissibly engage in "hypotheticals within hypotheticals" so long as the inquiry is factually warranted and is supported by appropriate evidence, and provided further that the hypothetical action would not contravene any other provision of the Bankruptcy Code.

This article focuses on the concept of "unreasonably small capital," which is not defined in the Bankruptcy Code or applicable state statutes. Consequently, the determination of adequate capital is fact-intensive and fertile grounds for litigation.

This year, 25 states and the District of Columbia are considering legislation that would prohibit employers from asking job candidates about past salaries. The belief is that by setting employees' salaries based on what they were paid at their last job, employers may be perpetuating gender discrimination that began long ago.