Upon receiving a notice of deposition for an officer, director, or managing agent pursuant to Rule 30(b)(1), an institutional party need not reflexively agree to produce the named individual. Here's why.
The timing of the filing of a shopping center tenant's bankruptcy filing may be affected by many factors, including, among others, the tenant's liquidity, down turns in sales and secured creditor issues. What happens to the landlord?
This article discusses certain simple methods of improving the visual layout and organization of lease forms to produce a stronger template for future leases.
New York's intermediate appellate court in Brooklyn decided a case bringing to New York law the principle that unless guarantors file for their own independent bankruptcy protection, the protections that bankruptcy brings to a primary debtor do not automatically protect the guarantors. '
Insurance is the best protection for unexpected casualties, and owners need to understand the basic coverages that are now available for both property and business income losses..
From the largest Chapter 11 case to date, <i>In re Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., et al</i>., emanates yet another decision of great interest to the restructuring community.
The U.S. Marshals Service can be utilized as the ultimate enforcer for the United States bankruptcy courts. A look at a recent case where this happened.
A look at the split between the Sixth and Ninth Circuits regarding whether consent can authorize bankruptcy courts to enter final orders in proceedings that would otherwise be the exclusive province of Article III Courts.
The U.S. Supreme Court on March 27 concluded its historic two-day scrutiny of the thorny issue of same-sex marriage, displaying wariness about ruling on the subject even as it appeared possible that the justices will strike down the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).
The U.S. Supreme Court on March 27 concluded its historic two-day scrutiny of the thorny issue of same-sex marriage, displaying wariness about ruling on the subject even as it appeared possible that the justices will strike down the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
The owner of a commercially successful patent may have competing desires. On one hand, the patent owner wants to protect the patent and secure its maximum benefit; on the other hand, the patent owner wants to avoid enforcement litigation with competitors because it is expensive and puts the patent at risk.
The doctrine of equivalents is a rule of equity adopted more than 150 years ago by the U.S. Supreme Court. Prosecution history estoppel is a rule of equity that controls access to the doctrine. In May 2002, the Court was called upon to revisit the doctrine and the estoppel rule in <i>Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co. Ltd.</i> Ultimately the Court reaffirmed the doctrine and expanded the estoppel rule, but not without inciting heated debate over the Court's rationale — especially since it included a new and controversial foreseeability test in its analysis for estoppel.
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.
