On April 9, 2021, the Supreme Court held in Tandon v. Newsom that California’s limitations on religious gatherings in homes likely violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. The Court therefore enjoined...more
Can a Trustee prosecute fraudulent transfer and tortious interference claims if no event of default on the notes it oversees has yet occurred? This was the question of first impression (at least in New York) recently...more
The concept of default-rate interest — interest that accrues on a debt at a higher-than-normal rate if the debtor defaults on terms of the underlying financial instrument — is well known. Default-rate duties, however, may be...more
A Message Regarding Racial Inequality: Faegre Drinker is deeply affected by the disturbing and terrible events surrounding the senseless deaths of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Ahmaud Arbery and Rayshard Brooks. While these...more
For many, the term “champerty” might be more readily associated with Monty Python whimsy than sophisticated legal argument. And while champerty is in fact an “ancient legal doctrine” that finds its genesis in medieval...more
On June 26, 2019, the Supreme Court decided Tennessee Wine and Spirits Retailers Association v. Thomas, No. 18–96, holding that Tennessee’s two-year residency requirement for individuals and businesses seeking to obtain...more
6/27/2019
/ Alcohol Beverage Control ,
Anti-Competitive ,
Commerce Clause ,
Legitimate State Interest ,
Liquor Control Boards ,
Liquor Licences ,
Non-Discrimination Rules ,
Residency Status ,
Tennessee Wine & Spirits Retailers Association v Thomas ,
Twenty-First Amendment ,
Wine & Alcohol
On June 24, 2019, the Supreme Court decided Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media, No. 18–481, holding that commercial or financial information that is customarily and actually treated as private by its owner and...more
6/25/2019
/ Appeals ,
Confidential Information ,
Congressional Intent ,
Exemptions ,
FOIA ,
Food Marketing Institute v Argus Leader Media ,
Motion to Compel ,
Private Commercial or Financial Information ,
Protected Disclosures ,
Reversal ,
SCOTUS ,
SNAP Program ,
Statutory Interpretation ,
Substantial-Competitive-Harm Test ,
Trade Secrets ,
USDA
On June 3, 2019, the Supreme Court decided Azar v. Allina Health Services, No. 17–1484, holding that the Department of Health and Human Services failed to follow required notice-and-comment procedures when it decided to count...more
6/5/2019
/ Administrative Procedure Act ,
Azar v Allina Health Services ,
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) ,
Hospitals ,
Low-Income Issues ,
Medicare ,
Medicare Advantage ,
Medicare Part A ,
Medicare Part C ,
Notice and Comment ,
Pay Reductions ,
Provider Payments ,
Reaffirmation ,
Retroactive Application ,
SCOTUS ,
Substantive Rule ,
Vacated
On May 20, 2019, the Supreme Court decided Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC, No. 17–1657, holding that a bankruptcy debtor’s rejection of an executory trademark license under § 365 of the Bankruptcy Court...more
5/22/2019
/ Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (BAP) ,
Bankruptcy Code ,
Breach of Contract ,
Commercial Bankruptcy ,
Debtors ,
Exclusions ,
Executory Contracts ,
IP License ,
Mission Product Holdings Inc v Tempnology LLC ,
Rescission ,
Reversal ,
SCOTUS ,
Section 365 ,
Split of Authority ,
Trademark Licenses ,
Trademarks ,
Trustees
On May 13, 2019, the Supreme Court decided Cochise Consultancy, Inc. v. United States ex rel. Hunt, No. 18-315, holding that the limitations period in 31 U.S.C. § 3731(b)(2) applies to False Claims Act (FCA) lawsuits in which...more
5/14/2019
/ 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