The U.S. Supreme Court handed down three bankruptcy rulings to finish the Term ended in July 2024. The decisions address the validity of nonconsensual third-party releases in chapter 11 plans, the standing of insurance...more
8/1/2024
/ Article III ,
Bankruptcy Code ,
Bankruptcy Court ,
Chapter 11 ,
Chapter 15 ,
Chapter 7 ,
Commercial Bankruptcy ,
Creditors ,
Debtors ,
SCOTUS ,
Standing
The United States Supreme Court in Macquarie Infrastructure Corp. v. Moab Partners, L.P., No. 22-1165, ruled that a corporation is not liable under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 for...more
4/29/2024
/ Disclosure Requirements ,
Item 303 ,
Macquarie Infrastructure Corp v Moab Partners LP ,
Misleading Statements ,
Omissions ,
Regulation S-K ,
Rule 10b-5 ,
SCOTUS ,
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) ,
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ,
Securities Fraud ,
Securities Violations
The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously decided Twitter v. Taamneh, clarifying the meaning of key provisions in the Anti-Terrorism Act ("ATA") and the pleading standard for aiding-and-abetting claims under that law....more
In Short -
The Situation: The U.S. Supreme Court considered whether § 363(m) of the Bankruptcy Code, which limits a party's ability to undo an asset transfer made to a good-faith purchaser in a bankruptcy case, is...more
4/26/2023
/ 363 Sales ,
Bankruptcy Code ,
Bankruptcy Court ,
Chapter 11 ,
Commercial Bankruptcy ,
Debtors ,
Jurisdiction ,
MOAC Mall Holdings LLC v Transform Holdco LLC ,
Mootness ,
Sale of Assets ,
SCOTUS ,
Sears ,
Section 363
The Situation. In Ritzen Group, Inc. v. Jackson Masonry, LLC, the U.S. Supreme Court considered whether bankruptcy court orders conclusively denying relief from the Bankruptcy Code's automatic stay are immediately...more
1/29/2020
/ Appeals ,
Automatic Stay ,
Commercial Bankruptcy ,
Creditors ,
Debtors ,
Dismissals ,
Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure ,
Mootness ,
Motion for Relief from Automatic Stay ,
Non-Appealable Decisions ,
Right To Appeal ,
Ritzen Group Inc v Jackson Masonry LLC ,
SCOTUS ,
Time-Barred Claims
A case must be filed within either six years of the FCA violation or three years from when the government knew or should have known of the violation.
In Cochise Consultancy, Inc. v. U.S. ex rel. Hunt, the Supreme Court...more
5/16/2019
/ Appeals ,
Cause of Action Accrual ,
Cochise Consultancy Inc v United States ex rel Hunt ,
Dismissals ,
False Claims Act (FCA) ,
Intervenors ,
Limitation Periods ,
Qui Tam ,
Reaffirmation ,
Relators ,
Reversal ,
SCOTUS ,
Statute of Limitations
The Texas Supreme Court is scheduled to review reliance disclaimer clauses and their enforceability in December 2018 and may provide further guidance on these issues.
The Texas Supreme Court recently granted review in...more
When does time run out on filing a class action? Under the U.S. Supreme Court's seminal decisions in American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah and Crown, Cork & Seal Co. v. Parker, a timely class complaint tolls the statute of...more
6/18/2018
/ American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah ,
Appeals ,
China Agritech Inc v Resh ,
Class Action ,
Class Certification ,
Class Members ,
Equitable Tolling ,
FRCP 23 ,
Putative Class Actions ,
Reversal ,
SCOTUS ,
Securities Fraud ,
Statute of Limitations ,
Subsequent Litigation
The U.S. Supreme Court in recent years has been steadfast in cabining the authority of state courts to assert personal jurisdiction over corporate defendants in civil cases. In 2017, the Court has continued this trend on...more
8/7/2017
/ Amended Rules ,
BNSF Railway Co v Tyrrell ,
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co v Superior Court of California - San Francisco County ,
Corporate Crimes ,
Due Process ,
Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure ,
Foreign Defendants ,
Minimum Contacts ,
Personal Jurisdiction ,
Sixth Amendment ,
Subject Matter Jurisdiction ,
White Collar Crimes