Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
On May 1, 2008, Cooley Godward Kronish LLP's bankruptcy litigation team, acting as counsel to the Official Employment-Related Issues Committee of Enron Corp. (the 'Employee Committee'), obtained a court-approved settlement of $850,000 from the Estate of John Cliff Baxter (the 'Baxter Estate'), a former 'Top Hat' executive of Enron who elected to accelerate approximately $1.3 million in deferred compensation benefits on the eve of the bankruptcy filing and committed suicide shortly thereafter. That and other similar transfers were challenged by the Employee Committee in a complaint filed against Baxter and other former executives alleging causes of action in preference and fraudulent transfer.
Although a number of the transferees challenged (unsuccessfully) the personal jurisdiction of the Enron bankruptcy court, only the Baxter Estate challenged its jurisdiction over the subject matter of the litigation. In a motion for summary judgment filed in December 2005, the Baxter Estate asserted that the Enron bankruptcy court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the Employee Committee's action under the so-called 'probate exception' to federal jurisdiction. The probate exception is a judicially crafted exception to otherwise proper federal jurisdiction that reserves to state probate courts such exclusive powers as the annulment of a will, the administration of a decedent's estate, and the disposal of property in their custody. At its core, the probate exception reiterates the general principle that where one court is exercising jurisdiction over property, a second court should not assume jurisdiction over the same property.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
This article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.
When we consider how the use of AI affects legal PR and communications, we have to look at it as an industrywide global phenomenon. A recent online conference provided an overview of the latest AI trends in public relations, and specifically, the impact of AI on communications. Here are some of the key points and takeaways from several of the speakers, who provided current best practices, tips, concerns and case studies.
The parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.