Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Bankruptcy Jurisdiction: From <i>Stern</i> to <i>Executive Benefits,</i> <i>Wellness International</i> and Beyond
After a reprieve of more than 20 years, the United States Supreme Court has in the past several years delved into the world of bankruptcy court jurisdiction in a big way. In 2011, the Court introduced new-found uncertainty into bankruptcy practice and procedure when it issued its landmark decision in Stern v. Marshall, which limited the constitutional authority of bankruptcy judges to issue final decisions with respect to state law counterclaims. At the time, many observers worried that the decision could lead to a dramatic overhaul of the bankruptcy court system.
With its June 9, 2014, decision in Executive Benefits Insurance Agency v. Arkison, the Court had its first opportunity to consider the implications of Stern. Ultimately, the Court's decision in Executive Benefits endorsed the new procedures that the bankruptcy courts have been following in the wake of Stern. Again, the Court left several questions open in Executive Benefits, and the decision's main lesson to bankruptcy practitioners seemed to be: “Stay tuned.” Now, with its decision of July 1, 2014, to grant certiorari in Wellness International Networks, Inc. v. Sharif, the Court has an opportunity to address questions expressly left open in Executive Benefits.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
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 Corporate Enforcement Policy: One Year Later
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.
Use of Deferred Prosecution Agreements In White Collar Investigations
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.
The DOJ's New Parameters for Evaluating Corporate Compliance Programs
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.
CLE Shouldn't Be the Only Mandatory Training for Attorneys
Each stage of an attorney's career offers opportunities for a curriculum that addresses both the individual's and the firm's need to drive success.
Discovery of Claim Construction and Infringement Analysis May be Compelled Prior to a Markman Hearing
A defendant in a patent infringement suit may, during discovery and prior to a <i>Markman</i> hearing, compel the plaintiff to produce claim charts, claim constructions, and element-by-element infringement analyses.