Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

Features

Could Mass Tort Bankruptcies Fall Apart in 2024? Image

Could Mass Tort Bankruptcies Fall Apart in 2024?

Amanda Bronstad

Mass tort bankruptcies took some big hits in 2023, with two of them dismissed outright, and two more potentially hanging in the balance.

Features

Fourth Circuit Ruling Underscores Judicial Divide On Use of 'Texas Two-Step' Image

Fourth Circuit Ruling Underscores Judicial Divide On Use of 'Texas Two-Step'

Avalon Zoppo

A sharply divided U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruling shielding a nondebtor in bankruptcy proceedings from asbestos lawsuits underscores the wider and growing divide among judges across the country on the bounds of Chapter 11 protection and corporations' use of the "Texas two-step" to address mass tort litigation.

Features

Novel Issues of Chapter 11 Mass Tort and Complex Claims Cases Impact Claims Against Unrelated Debtors Image

Novel Issues of Chapter 11 Mass Tort and Complex Claims Cases Impact Claims Against Unrelated Debtors

Francis J. Lawall & Brenden S. Dahrouge

Chapter 11 cases involving mass tort and complex personal injury claims often require the resolution of novel legal issues that stretch the bounds of existing precedent. As these cases evolve, they can also impact claims against other debtors unrelated to the case at hand through court-approved injunctions, releases or settlements.

Features

How the Texas Two-Step Changes How Plaintiffs Litigate Mass Torts Image

How the Texas Two-Step Changes How Plaintiffs Litigate Mass Torts

Mark Eveland

By enabling defendants to shield themselves from mass tort liability, the "Texas Two-Step" is a new obstacle for plaintiffs pursuing mass tort cases against manufacturers of dangerous products.

Features

Supreme Court Limits Forum Shopping with Plavix Lawsuit Decision Image

Supreme Court Limits Forum Shopping with Plavix Lawsuit Decision

Janice G. Inman

OnJune 19, the U.S. Supreme Court upended years of jurisprudence to hand corporations a gift: a far more stringent definition of specific jurisdiction that will force plaintiffs to bring suit in multiple state courts rather than join their claims to those in far-flung jurisdictions.

Need Help?

  1. Prefer an IP authenticated environment? Request a transition or call 800-756-8993.
  2. Need other assistance? email Customer Service or call 1-877-256-2472.

MOST POPULAR STORIES

  • Bankruptcy Sales: Finding a Diamond In the Rough
    There is no efficient market for the sale of bankruptcy assets. Inefficient markets yield a transactional drag, potentially dampening the ability of debtors and trustees to maximize value for creditors. This article identifies ways in which investors may more easily discover bankruptcy asset sales.
    Read More ›
  • Supreme Court Asked to Assess Per Se Rule Tension in Criminal Antitrust
    In recent years, practitioners have observed a tension between criminal enforcement of the broadly written terms of the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 and the modern Supreme Court's notions of statutory interpretation and due process in the criminal law context. A certiorari petition filed in late August in Sanchez et al. v. United States, asks the Supreme Court to address this tension, as embodied in the judge-made per se rule.
    Read More ›
  • Restrictive Covenants Meet the Telecommunications Act of 1996
    Congress enacted the Telecommunications Act of 1996 to encourage development of telecommunications technologies, and in particular, to facilitate growth of the wireless telephone industry. The statute's provisions on pre-emption of state and local regulation have been frequently litigated. Last month, however, the Court of Appeals, in <i>Chambers v. Old Stone Hill Road Associates (see infra<i>, p. 7) faced an issue of first impression: Can neighboring landowners invoke private restrictive covenants to prevent construction of a cellular telephone tower? The court upheld the restrictive covenants, recognizing that the federal statute was designed to reduce state and local regulation of cell phone facilities, not to alter rights created by private agreement.
    Read More ›