This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Legal news site Law360 has set out its “cases to watch” in Delaware for 2020 [$$$], including the Jarden appraisal and a case where an appraisal action led to a legal malpractice claim. In the case of Jarden, which we’ve covered before , is being appealed to the Delaware Supreme Court, and if ultimately heard, promises to both further clarify and further complicate the appraisal landscape.
By: Morgan C. Liptak. St. John’s University School of Law. American Bankruptcy Institute Law Review, Staff Member. Under section 1123(a)(4) of title 11 of the United States Code (the “Bankruptcy Code”), a reorganization plan should provide equal treatment for each claim of a particular class, unless the claim holder specifically agrees to less favorable treatment. [1] In In re Peabody Energy Corporation , the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held that “consideration for valu
By: Ross Weiner. St. John’s University School of Law. American Bankruptcy Institute Law Review , Staff Member. Under section 363 of title 11 of the United States Code (the “Bankruptcy Code”), a trustee or debtor-in-possession may sell the debtor’s assets. A trustee may avoid such a sale or recover damages if the sale process is controlled by collusion.
By: Justin Henderson. St John’s University School of Law. American Bankruptcy Institute Law Review Staff Member. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, in SEC v. Stanford International Bank, Ltd. , held that the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas abused its discretion when it approved a settlement that would preclude third-parties from bringing claims against the debtor’s insurers (the “Underwriters”). [1] As a result of a ponzi scheme
Speaker: Susan Spencer, Principal of Spencer Communications
Intent signal data can go a long way toward shortening sales cycles and closing more deals. The challenge is deciding which is the best type of intent data to help your company meet its sales and marketing goals. In this webinar, Susan Spencer, fractional CMO and principal of Spencer Communications, will unpack the differences between contact-level and company-level intent signals.
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 8,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content