Search Results (1402)
Documents on Litigation, Banking & Financial Services
Show: results per page
|U.S. Supreme Court Reins in Bankruptcy Court Authority Under § 105(a)|
Geoffrey S. Goodman, Emil P. Khatchatourian, Jill L. Nicholson, Ann Marie Uetz; Foley & Lardner LLP;
March 10, 2014, previously published on March 6, 2014On March 4, 2014, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Law v. Siegel, 571 U.S. -- (Mar. 4, 2014) and held that the bankruptcy court exceeded its authority under section 105(a) of the Bankruptcy Code and its inherent powers by authorizing the chapter 7 trustee to...
|Pennsylvania Supreme Court Deposits Bank's Uniformity Claim in the Recycling Bin|
Andrew D. Appleby, Zachary T. Atkins; Sutherland Asbill & Brennan LLP;
March 3, 2014, previously published on January 8, 2014The Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that treating a merger between two in-state banks differently than a merger between an in-state bank and an out-of-state bank did not violate the Uniformity Clause of the Pennsylvania Constitution. If two in-state banks merged, Pennsylvania law formerly required...
|Minority Approval of Related Party Transactions by Written Consent: In the Matter of Samco Gold Limited and In the Matter of TerraVest Capital Inc.|
Gregory Hogan; Cassels Brock & Blackwell LLP;
February 18, 2014, previously published on February 13, 2014In a related party transaction, minority approval under Multilateral Instrument 61-101 ("MI 61 -101") by way of written consent from a majority of disinterested shareholders may be available on application to the securities regulators, leading to reduced costs and delays.
|U.S. Supreme Court Establishes Enforceability Of Forum-Selection Clauses|
James B. Rixey; Vandeventer Black LLP;
February 18, 2014, previously published on February 2014In a recent decision, the U.S. Supreme Court established that contractual forum-selection clauses deserve near absolute deference and should be enforced in all but the most exceptional cases when deciding transfer of venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
|Ninth Circuit Finds Standing Based on Alleged Violation of Plaintiff’s Statutory Rights Even Without a Showing of Actual Harm|
Gregg Farnham, Cindy D. Hanson, Maureen A. Sheehy; Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP;
February 18, 2014, previously published on February 17, 2014In a decision that may have broad application in cases involving an alleged violation of a statutory right, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that a plaintiff suing for violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (the “FCRA”) has Article III standing to pursue a...
|Singapore Court Of Appeal Upholds Ruling on Legal Entitlement to Assets of Deposed Philippines Premier, Ferdinand E Marcos|
Annie Clarke, Antonio Suarez-Martinez; Edwards Wildman Palmer LLP;
February 17, 2014, previously published on February 14, 2014In 1986, the President of the Philippines, Mr Ferdinand E. Marcos, was deposed by a non-violent coup later popularised as the ‘People Power Revolution’. During his tenure, Mr Marcos, his family and close associates are alleged to have illicitly looted public assets to amass a huge...
|Quebec Court Upholds Priority of Provincial Pension Deemed Trust in Timminco CCAA|
Sam Babe; Aird & Berlis LLP;
February 14, 2014, previously published on February 5, 2014In a January 24, 2014 decision in the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (the “CCAA”) proceedings of Timminco Limited and Bécancour Silicon Inc. [2014 QCCS 174] (“Timminco”), the Quebec Superior Court (the “Court”) held that the Supplemental...
|Connecticut Court Finds that Prohibition of Yield Spread Premiums in Dodd-Frank Act Does Not Support a Fraud Claim|
David A. Elliott, Kristen Peters Watson; Burr & Forman LLP;
February 14, 2014, previously published on February 4, 2014The Connecticut Court of Appeals recently found that the prohibition of yield spread premiums in the Dodd-Frank Act did not establish a per se violation of a fraud claim under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (“CUTPA”).
|Ninth Circuit Holds Attempted Collection of Foreclosure-Related Fees Violates Servicemembers Civil Relief Act|
Timothy S. Crisp; Foley & Lardner LLP;
February 11, 2014, previously published on February 7, 2014The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that a successor mortgage servicer violated Section 533(c) of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) when it attempted to collect, or failed to remove, fees incurred in connection with a rescinded Notice of Default.
|Federal Court in North Carolina Holds Mortgagor is Intended Third-Party Beneficiary to Policy Issued to Mortgagee|
George B. Hall; Phelps Dunbar LLP;
February 10, 2014, previously published on January 29, 2014A federal court in North Carolina recently held that mortgagors are intended third-party beneficiaries to lender force-placed policies such that they could bring claims for unfair and deceptive trade practices arising out of denials of first-party property claims. Mosely v. Balboa Ins. Co., 2013 WL...