On Dec. 9, 2024, the Supreme Court will hear argument in Kousisis v. United States, a case that will again review the reach of the federal mail and wire fraud statutes. At issue this time is the so-called “fraudulent inducement” theory of property fraud — namely, whether deception to induce a commercial exchange can constitute mail or wire fraud, even if the infliction of economic harm on the alleged victim was not the object of the scheme.
The Supreme Court held that expert testimony in a criminal case, as to whether "most people" similar to the defendant have a particular mental state, does not run afoul of the Federal Rule of Evidence's prohibition against expert opinion evidence about whether a criminal defendant had or lacked the mental state required for conviction. Particularly in white-collar cases, where the defendant's intent is often the central disputed issue, the implications of Diaz may be far-reaching.
The recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Sheetz v. County of El Dorado will cause many local governments to revisit the defensibility of their impact fee regimes.
The Supreme Court's holding ensures that insurers who have long been silenced in Chapter 11 proceedings will now be heard. It is also a shot across the bow for two other judge-made, atextual doctrines that bar consideration of the merits in Chapter 11 appeals.
A new appeal landed at the U.S. Supreme Court with potentially billions of dollars at stake for the music, movie and Internet industries. The question presented is whether internet service providers such as Cox Communications, AT&T and Comcast should be held liable for the copyright infringement committed by their users.
The court's unwillingness to issue a final decision at this early stage indicates how much is at stake for social media moderation of users' postings. The outcome could set a crucial precedent affecting the regulation of content on social media platforms, influencing how these entities manage user-generated content and exercise their editorial discretion.
Until now, a successful reorganization assumed the debtor could confirm a plan with nondebtor releases and injunctions based on less than full creditor consensus. Now that nonconsensual releases in Chapter 11 plans are no longer permitted, will debtors have a more difficult time obtaining a 105(a) injunction?
In a landmark decision, the U.S. Supreme Court has unanimously upheld the constitutionality of the Lanham Act's provision that prohibits the registration of trademarks consisting of or comprising the name of a particular living individual without the individual's written consent.
In a recent decision, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the government was not required to refund millions of dollars paid by a Chapter 11 debtor pursuant to an unconstitutional fee scheme between the judicial districts.
The U.S. Supreme Court has issued its most anticipated bankruptcy decision in recent memory. In a 5-4 decision entered June 27, the Supreme Court struck down the nonconsensual third-party releases. Writing for the Court, Justice Neil Gorsuch ruled that nothing in the Bankruptcy Code authorized the nonconsensual release or discharge of claims of opioid victims against the Sacklers, who were not debtors themselves.
