Since the first civil lawsuit for money damages, plaintiffs have sought to maximize recoveries while defendants have sought to minimize them. This creates an obvious tension that is often left to a jury. Now, we have a new wrinkle in the issue, courtesy of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). How will it affect the award of money damages in civil lawsuits?
Is there a bright-line rule for when a claimant is put on notice of a physician's status as a public employee for purposes of New Jersey's Tort Claims Act? The answer may be found in the matter of <I>Biassou v. Fitzsimmons</I>, in which the trial court and Appellate Division ruled that a plaintiff's claims were barred under the Tort Claims Act for failing to timely file a notice of claim.
James H. Rotondo, John W. Cerreta
&
David W.S. Lieberman
As noted last month, the Supreme Court's recent decision in <I>Daimler AG v. Bauman</I> profoundly altered the law of personal jurisdiction when it held that a corporate defendant is subject to general personal jurisdiction only where the corporation may fairly be "regarded as at home." The discussion concludes herein.
Two years ago, a bombshell decision issued in the Eastern District of New York by Judge Jack B. Weinstein held that it is unconstitutional to use ethnicity-based statistics to calculate future economic loss in a tort case. <I>G.M.M. v. Kimpson</I>, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99715 (E.D.N.Y. July 30, 2013).,
“Baseball arbitration” refers to the process used in Major League Baseball in which if an eligible player's representative and the club ownership cannot reach a compensation agreement through negotiation, each party enters a final submission and during a formal hearing each side — player and management — presents its case and then the designated panel of arbitrators chooses one of the salary bids with no other result being allowed. This method has become increasingly popular even beyond the sport of baseball.
Insiders (and others) in the private equity business are accustomed to seeing a good deal of discussion ' academic and trade ' on the question of the appropriate methods of valuing private equity positions and securities which are otherwise illiquid. An interesting recent decision in the Southern District has been brought to our attention. The case is <i>In Re Allied Capital Corp.</i>, CCH Fed. SEC L. Rep. 92411 (US DC, S.D.N.Y., Apr. 25, 2003). Judge Lynch's decision is well written, the Judge reviewing a motion to dismiss by a business development company, Allied Capital, against a strike suit claiming that Allied's method of valuing its portfolio failed adequately to account for i) conditions at the companies themselves and ii) market conditions. The complaint appears to be, as is often the case, slap dash, content to point out that Allied revalued some of its positions, marking them down for a variety of reasons, and the stock price went down - all this, in the view of plaintiff's counsel, amounting to violations of Rule 10b-5.
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.
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.
With trillions of dollars to keep watch over, the last thing we need is the distraction of costly litigation brought on by patent assertion entities (PAEs or "patent trolls"), companies that don't make any products but instead seek royalties by asserting their patents against those who do make products.
