We have previously blogged about Bartenwerfer v. Buckley, No. 21-908, a Supreme Court case concerning the scope of the fraud exception to the dischargeability of debts in bankruptcy. Section 523 of the Bankruptcy Code exempts...more
A discharge in bankruptcy usually discharges a debtor from the debtor’s liabilities. Section 523 of the Bankruptcy Code, however, sets forth certain exceptions to this policy, including for “any debt . . . for money,...more
The Eleventh Circuit recently affirmed an Alabama district court’s decision granting summary judgment in favor of Allstate Insurance Company in a consolidated ERISA class action challenging Allstate’s decision to stop paying...more
Conyers represented the successful respondent trustees in the recent Court of Appeal decision in Wang, Ven Jiao v Grand View PTC & Ors [2021] Civil Appeal No.4, in which the Court refused an application for leave to appeal...more
In Texas, and as a general rule, only the four corners of the policy and the four corners of the petition against the insured are relevant in deciding whether the duty to defend applies. Richards v. State Farm Lloyds,...more
In Rotkiske v. Klemm, the Supreme Court has the opportunity to do what many plaintiffs’ attorneys have dreamed of for years: effectively expand the FDCPA’s one-year statute of limitations by applying the “discovery rule” to...more
Acquisition agreements frequently contain maximum limits or “caps” on the sellers’ potential liability for losses resulting from breaches of the sellers’ and target company’s representations and warranties. However, the...more
This article explores possible measures that parties to commercial transactions and their attorneys can take to help ensure greater contract certainty when fraud claims of one type or another are not barred by the parol...more
On the 9th of September 2014, the Privy Council in the United Kingdom delivered a judgment in Alternative Power Solution Ltd. v. Central Electricity Board reaffirming the established principle that, other than in cases of...more
In This Issue: *FEATURE ARTICLES - Cal Supreme Court Refuses To Immunize Employers In Mixed-Motive Discrimination Cases, But Significantly Limits Remedies - Manager's Bias, Public Policy, And Defamation...more
In 1935, the California Supreme Court in Bank of America National Trust and Savings Ass’n v. Pendergrass prohibited a borrower from introducing external or parol evidence to demonstrate fraud in connection with an agreement...more
Background - On January 14, 2013, the California Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision clarifying – and ultimately rewriting – the applicable legal standard for introduction of parol evidence to show that a contract...more
The California Supreme Court has removed a legal barrier for litigants seeking to invalidate contracts on the basis of fraud. Overruling a 75-year old decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the parol evidence rule does...more
The California Supreme Court handed down a unanimous decision earlier this week, broadening the scope of the “fraud exception” to the parol evidence rule, to allow a plaintiff challenging the terms of a written agreement to...more