Search Results (1434)
Documents on Litigation, Banking & Financial Services
Show: results per page
|Georgia Supreme Court Applies the Business Judgment Rule to Bank Officers and Directors; Decision Has Implications for Corporate Officers and Directors|
Maia Cogen, Patricia A. Gorham, Gabriel A. Mendel, W. Scott Sorrels, Yvonne M. Williams-Wass; Sutherland Asbill & Brennan LLP;
July 24, 2014, previously published on July 18, 2014In a landmark ruling for officers and directors of Georgia’s financial institutions, the Supreme Court of Georgia held in FDIC v. Loudermilk, S14Q0454 (Ga. July 11, 2014), that officers and directors of banks are protected by the business judgment rule, which affords officers and directors a...
|Maine Supreme Court Decision Limits Scope of MERS' Ability to Assign Mortgages|
Duane Morris LLP;
July 23, 2014, previously published on July 14, 2014On July 3, 2014, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court issued a ruling in Bank of America, N.A. v. Greenleaf, 2014 ME 89 (Me. July 3, 2014), significantly affecting the ability of Mortgage Electronic Registration System, Inc. (MERS) to assign mortgage rights as a "nominee" of a mortgage...
|Georgia Supreme Court Affirms Business Judgment Rule|
Duane Morris LLP;
July 23, 2014, previously published on July 16, 2014The Georgia Supreme Court has, for the first time, affirmed the existence of the business judgment rule in Georgia common law. More specifically, however, the state Supreme Court held that the business judgment rule does not automatically prevent all claims for ordinary negligence against corporate...
|The Supreme Court Limits the President's Recess Appointment Power|
John F. Cooney; Venable LLP;
July 23, 2014, previously published on July 11, 2014In January 2012, President Obama made recess appointments of the first Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and two members of the National Labor Relations Board during a three day period when the Senate was in pro forma session. The Senate later confirmed Director Cordray to his...
|Virginia Federal Court Lacks Jurisdiction Over Arizona Resident|
Richard J. Medoff; Semmes Bowen Semmes A Professional Corporation;
July 21, 2014, previously published on July 2014In Hirsch v. Johnson, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia held that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over the defendant, an Arizona resident, under Virginia law and the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Court rejected...
|The Eleventh Circuit’s Recent Decision Clarifies an Equity Receiver’s Standing to Clawback Receivership Assets Under the Florida Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act|
Gavin C. Gaukroger; Berger Singerman LLP;
July 21, 2014, previously published on July 17, 2014The Eleventh Circuit’s recent opinion in Wiand v. Lee clarifies longstanding issues relating to an equity receiver’s standing to pursue clawback claims for the benefit of the receivership estate under the Florida Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (“FUFTA”). See Wiand v. Lee,...
|Social Media and Spoliation|
Gabriel Ben Abba Crafton, Scott St. Amand; Rogers Towers, P.A.;
July 21, 2014, previously published on July 10, 2014As we discussed in our previous post regarding the Christou case, social media is discoverable - and consequently subject to a litigation hold. From an evidentiary standpoint, social media is not without its shortcomings, and it is important to understand that social media is vulnerable to...
|The Supreme Court Elaborates on the Concept of Patent Eligibility and Patents Directed to Abstract Ideas|
Kristin Shusko; GrayRobinson, P.A.;
July 17, 2014, previously published on July 15, 2014In Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, the Supreme Court considered whether computer-related patents were patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and faced the question of defining an abstract idea. The Court found that generic computer implementation of an abstract idea could not...
|Supreme Court Decision Will Create Major Concerns For Some Commercial Lenders|
William F. Miller; Pannone Lopes Devereaux & West LLC;
July 16, 2014The laws of virtually every state prohibit lenders from charging interest on loans in excess of the “usury rate” - the maximum interest rate permitted under the laws of the state. However, usury statutes vary greatly from state to state. Not only do the maximum interest rates vary, but...
|The Landmark Tsilhqot’in Nation Decision: What it Means for Project Developers in Canada|
Laura Easton, Heather L. Treacy; Davis LLP;
July 11, 2014, previously published on July 3, 2014On June 26, 2014, the Supreme Court of Canada (the “Court”) issued a landmark ruling in the area of aboriginal law with its decision in Tsilhqot’in Nation v British Columbia, 2014 SCC 44 (the “Decision”). The Court declared that the Tsilhqot’in Nation, a...