Argentina s priority payment on its restructured sovereign debt: judicial protection accorded to holdout creditors
|
|
- Elinor Fletcher
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 mckennalong.com Argentina s priority payment on its restructured sovereign debt: k Nora Wouters Authors Nora Wouters is a Partner at McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP and a Member of the Brussels Bar. Argentina s external debt instruments have been a source of litigation before domestic and international courts since it defaulted in on 100 billion USD worth of bonds issued in accordance with a 1994 Fiscal Agency Agreement ( FAA Bonds ) and since it restructured more than 90% of them through its 2005 and 2010 bond exchanges. 1 The first debt swap had enabled Argentina to restructure its external debt with 76.1% of its creditors and the second debt swap with approximately 93% of them, the remaining ones being holdout creditors. 2 The debt swaps had resulted in the issuance of new bonds ( Exchange Bonds ) worth 70% less than the original bonds face value, 3 which entitled the Exchange Bondholders to a single instalment of interest on their bonds. The Exchange Bonds had been offered to the original creditors on a take-it-or-leave-it basis with no room for genuine negotiation. 4 NML Capital Ltd and 18 other plaintiffs, holdout creditors, sued the Republic of Argentina before the US federal courts. They argued that Argentina s payment of interest on Exchange Bonds without full payment of the interest and the principal on the FAA Bonds had breached the terms of the FAA in the first place. The latter Agreement stipulated that Argentina was required to pay back interest and the entire capital on FAA Bonds in the event of a default on the bonds. Moreover, the FAA called for equality of treatment between the proportion paid on FAA Bonds and the proportion paid on any restructured bonds issued after the conclusion of the FAA ( ratable payment clause ). Finally, the FAA stated that any dispute over the FAA Bonds fell within the jurisdiction of New York courts and was subject to New York law exclusively. Nicolas Croquet, PhD Nicolas Croquet is an Associate at McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP, a Member of the Brussels Bar and a Doctor of Law from the University of Oxford. In the case NML Capital Ltd et al. v. Argentina, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York ( District Court ) had partially granted the action brought by NML Capital Ltd and 18 other plaintiffs against Argentina. The District Court prohibited the latter from paying back the Exchange Bondholders without any corresponding payment made to the plaintiffs. The United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit ( Court of Appeals ) partially overruled and partially remanded the District Court s injunctions in its October 2012 decision. On November 21, 2012, the District Court on remand delivered amended orders 1 Karen Halverson Cross, US Supreme Court Denies Certiori and Affirms Discovery in Bondholder Litigation against Argentina (2014) 18/23 AJIL; UNSG, External debt sustainability and development (2014) A/69/ Embassy of Argentina in Washington D.C., 10 reasons why NML v. Argentina matters, available at argentinamatters.pdf. 3 Cross, supra note 1. 4 New York Times, The Muddled Case of Argentine Bonds (July 24, 2014), available at
2 Page 2 ( Injunction Orders ), which clarified the payment formula underpinning the challenged injunctions and the effects of these injunctions on third parties and intermediary banks. Argentina claimed that the Injunction Orders, by prohibiting it from paying back the Exchange Bondholders unless it made comparable payments to the plaintiffs (i.e. the original FAA Bondholders), had caused injury to its country, to Exchange Bondholders, to participants in the Exchange Bond Payment System and to the public interest as a whole. The Court of Appeals, in its decision of August 23, 2013, affirmed the District Court s Injunction Orders and dismissed Argentina s claims of abuse of discretion by the District Court. The decision of August 23, 2013 was the object of a petition for a writ of certiorari with a view to lodging an appeal before the Supreme Court of the United States ( Supreme Court ). 5 On November 18, 2013, the Court of Appeals refused to reconsider its earlier decision of August 23, 2013, which had the effect of requiring Argentina to pay approximately 1.33 billion USD to FAA Bondholders pursuant to the FAA s ratable payment clause. 6 The Supreme Court, in a decision of June 16, 2014, rejected the petition for a writ of certiorari, thereby precluding it from reviewing the lawfulness of the Court of Appeals decision of August 23, 2013 independently of the judgment on the merits. 7 The Supreme Court, in another decision of June 16, 2014, held that the Court of Appeals had not breached Argentina s immunity from execution under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act ( FSIA ) by subjecting Argentina s extraterritorial assets to post-judgment discovery (i.e. procedure by which Argentina was requested to disclose to the plaintiff information regarding foreign assets it owns that may be subject to execution). 8 On September 29, 2014, U.S. District Judge, Thomas Griesa, in response to Argentina s lack of compliance with the Court of Appeals decision of August 23, 2013, found Argentina to be in civil contempt of court (i.e. to have disobeyed a court s order) and reserved its decision on sanctions for a subsequent hearing. 9 Focus in this article will be on the Court of Appeals decision of August 23, 2013, which has precipitated scrutiny of the issue of sovereign debt restructuring by the UN institutions. 10 Before pronouncing on the merits of the case, the Court of Appeals had to ascertain whether the Bank of New York Mellon ( BNY ), the Exchange Bondholder Group ( EBG ), Fintech Advisory Inc. (i.e. a holder of Exchange Bonds), a group of bondholders ( the Euro Bondholders ) and ICE Canyon LLC (i.e. a holder of GDP-related securities which Argentina issued) enjoyed the right to appeal the Injunction Orders as non-parties. In this respect, the Court of Appeals ruled that the right of appeal, as a general rule, is limited to the parties to the challenged decision. Exceptionally, nonparties may exercise a right of appeal if they are bound by the content of the decision or if they can demonstrate that the decision has plausibly affected their interests. The Court of Appeals distinguished the situation of BNY from that of EBG, Fintech, the Euro Bondholders and ICE Canyon. Whereas the former was bound by the findings of the Injunction Orders in its capacity as a participant in the payment process of the Exchange Bonds and thus enjoyed appellate standing, the latter were not bound by the content of the Injunction Orders and additionally could not demonstrate that the Injunction Orders had plausibly affected their interests. The Court of Appeals arrived at this conclusion after recalling 5 According to Rule 11 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of the United States, [a] petition for a writ of certiorari to review a case pending in a United States court of appeals, before judgment is entered in that court, will be granted only upon a showing that the case is of such imperative public importance as to justify deviation from normal appellate practice and to require immediate determination in this Court S.Ct Republic of Argentina v. NML Capital, Ltd., 573 U.S. (2014). 9 According to the Cornell University Law School s Legal Information Institute, civil contempt of court under US civil procedural law is intended to coerce a party to perform an action. For more details, see: 10 NML Capital, Ltd. v. Republic of Argentina, 727 F.3d 230 (2d Cir. 2013).
3 Page 3 that, in case Argentina defaulted on its obligations owed to EBG, Fintech, the Euro Bondholders and ICE Canyon, the latter could always launch judicial proceedings against the Argentinean Government. In short, creditors interests may not be considered plausibly affected by a decision on the mere ground that the decision requires the debtor to direct its payments to another set of creditors. Although EBG, Fintech, the Euro Bondholders and ICE Canyon could not invoke any of the above two exceptions and thus did not enjoy a right of appeal, the Court of Appeals agreed that they could intervene as amici curiae in support of Argentina s grounds of appeal in the appellate proceedings. The Court of Appeals recognized at the outset that the dispute between Argentina and the plaintiffs (i.e. original FAA Bondholders) essentially raised questions of contract law even though it responded to Argentina s grounds of appeal in both legal and policy-oriented terms. On the merits of the case, the Court of Appeals first assessed whether the Injunction Orders had unjustly injured Argentina per se. The Court of Appeals rejected Argentina s claim that the Injunction Orders had infringed the FSIA. 11 The FSIA protects sovereign States from attachment, arrest and execution upon their property located on US soil subject to certain exceptions (e.g. in case of waiver of immunity by the foreign State; where the property relates to a commercial activity that has originated in the claim; where the foreign assets are used or are intended to be used within the framework of a military activity). The Court of Appeals ruled that the Injunction Orders were not in breach of the FSIA, as they did not amount to a seizing of, a forcible restraint on, or an act of legal dominion over Argentina s property. The Injunction Orders did not select the resources from which Argentina had to pay the FAA Bondholders and thus could not qualify as attachment, arrest or execution upon Argentina s property in the US. The Court of Appeals also dismissed Argentina s argument that the Injunction Orders to immediately pay the FAA Bondholders 100% of the principal and the interest on their bonds were inequitable due to Exchange Bondholders being only entitled to a single instalment of interest on their bonds. The Court of Appeals ruled that the District Court had not abused its discretion by allowing the FAA Bondholders to obtain what they had contractually agreed upon as part of the FAA despite the fact that other creditors may not have derived the same contractual benefits from their own bargaining process (e.g. the first and the second debt swaps entered into by Argentina). In other words, the plaintiffs could not be blamed for having better negotiated the terms of their bond transaction than the creditors which accepted the exchange offers as part of Argentina s foreign debt restructuring. Second, the Court of Appeals found ill-grounded Argentina s claim that the Injunction Orders had caused injuries to Exchange Bondholders by inflicting on them unreasonable hardship or loss in their capacity as third parties. The Court of Appeals pointed out that Argentina had expressly refused to provide any formal assurance to Exchange Bondholders, prior to their accepting the exchange offers, that the dispute over the FAA Bonds would not impact upon the payments required by the Exchange Bonds. In any event, even if Argentina did default on the Exchange Bonds, Exchange Bondholders would still be in a position to launch judicial proceedings against Argentina. Third, the Court of Appeals dismissed Argentina s and the amici curiae s contention that the Injunction Orders, by targeting participants in the international financial system through which Argentina makes payments to Exchange Bondholders, had been founded on a lack of personal jurisdiction, had breached the principle of comity 12 and had infringed upon non-parties due process rights. The Court of Appeals ruled that any District Court s injunction U.S.C According to the Cornell University Law School s Legal Information Institute, comity under US civil procedural law refers to [t]he legal principle that political entities (such as states, nations, or courts from different jurisdictions) will mutually recognize each other s legislative, executive, and judicial acts. For more details, see:
4 Page 4 automatically binds persons who are in active concert or participation with the direct parties to the decision by virtue of Rule 65(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 13 It found that the District Court, by delivering its Injunction Orders, had not lacked personal jurisdiction since it had merely warned payment system participants that their liability could be engaged should they provide any assistance to Argentina in disobeying the Injunction Orders. In no way did the Injunction Orders place a direct prohibition on the payment system participants. The Court of Appeals also ruled that the Injunction Orders had not breached the principle of comity since the District Court, as any other federal court, may enjoin conduct that has or is intended to have a substantial effect within the United States. When addressing the relevance of comity to the case at hand, the Court of Appeals clarified that the Injunction Orders had not imposed a prohibition on any foreign entity aside from Argentina: the reference to specific foreign payment participants was only meant to acknowledge the applicability of Rule 65(d). As regards the question of whether the due process rights of non-parties had been denied, the Court of Appeals held that, in the event that persons actively assisted Argentina in breaching the District Court s Injunction Orders pursuant to Rule 65(d), they would be given notice and be granted the right to be heard in subsequent proceedings. Fourth, the Court of Appeals dismissed Argentina s claim that the Injunction Orders would have an adverse impact on the capital markets and on the global economy. The Court of Appeals ruled that Argentina s claim was premised on speculative and exaggerated consequences. In particular, the Court of Appeals took the view that the Injunction Orders would not dissuade other bondholders from entering into future sovereign debt restructurings (contrary to Argentina s claim) since more recent bond arrangements tend to stipulate collective action clauses, which enable a qualified majority of bondholders to extend the effects of a restructuring plan to holdout or recalcitrant creditors. The Court of Appeals also held that the Injunction Orders would not keep bond issuers away from the New York financial market. Whereas New York law in no way precludes borrowers and lenders from freely negotiating financial transactions, borrowers (including foreign debtors) shall be held liable for any breach of the terms of transactions they have agreed upon. Requiring any debtor to pay back the bonds it has issued is essential to preserving New York as one of the leading financial platforms worldwide. Following the Contempt Order, Argentina filed an application instituting contentious proceedings against the United States before the International Court of Justice ( ICJ ), alleging that the US federal decisions in the case NML Capital Ltd et al. v. Argentina had breached the principles of national sovereignty and of State immunity as guaranteed under public international law. 14 The US Government has not officially consented to the ICJ s jurisdiction over the above contentious proceedings, and Argentina may not be able to rely on any US pre-existing declaration or treaty commitment accepting the ICJ s jurisdiction. Even if the ICJ were competent to adjudicate upon this case, it would likely dismiss the application on the merits on the ground that the case pertains essentially to the interpretation and application of New York contract law in a US procedural context and thus raises no issue of public international law prima facie. It is indeed unclear how the principles of national sovereignty and of State immunity would have been breached as a result of the US litigation given that Argentina had deliberately subjected itself to New York courts and New York law as part of the FAA, that the Court of Appeals decision of August 23, 2013 did not place any direct prohibition on foreign entities other than Argentina and that the decision did not order any form of attachment, arrest or execution on Argentina s foreign assets located in the US. 13 Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d). 14 International Court of Justice (7 August 2014) Press Release No. 2014/25, available at
5 Page 5 The NML Capital Ltd et al. v. Argentina litigation raises the questions of how to impose a foreign debt restructuring scheme accepted by a majority of bondholders upon a minority of recalcitrant bondholders in the absence of inclusion of a collective action clause in the bond exchange offers and of how to protect the integrity of a foreign debt restructuring scheme from actions for full recovery of their receivables launched by holdout bondholders. As the UN Secretary-General ( UNSG ) pointed out in his Report of July 22, 2014 ( UNSG s Report ), whereas more recent bond agreements have stipulated collective action clauses, an important number of older bonds that have not yet expired do not include such clauses. 15 The UNSG rightly signaled that the US decisions in NML Capital Ltd et al. v. Argentina may discourage bondholders not bound by a collective action clause from entering into a foreign debt restructuring scheme given the absence of guarantee that they will not be superseded by holdout creditors who will have maintained their original title to the full amount of their bonds. Failing the adoption of an international treaty governing the restructuring of a State s foreign debt and as the US Court of Appeals decision of August 23, 2013 has shown, the modalities of reimbursement of foreign debt instruments will remain a matter of private law (i.e. contract law, commercial law and/ or financial law). In the current state of affairs, the law applicable to the implementation of a foreign debt restructuring scheme is not necessarily that of the issuing State if the bond agreement stipulates a foreign law clause. In addition, the competent forum may supplement the applicable law agreed upon by the parties to the bond agreement with other sources of law in order to account for the special status of the defaulting entity. In light of these circumstances, the legal regime governing foreign debt restructuring is not uniform and hinges on the nature of the bond agreement and on domestic courts or international arbitration bodies interpretation and application of the chosen law. It must be agreed with the UNSG s Report that what is currently missing in the international financial sector is an international debt workout that would obviate the absence of clear sovereign insolvency procedures. 16 As a follow up to the UNSG s Report, the UN General Assembly ( UNGA ), in its Resolution of September 17, 2014, called for the adoption by the end of 2014 of a multilateral legal framework for sovereign debt restructuring processes designed to enhance the international financial system s efficiency, predictability and stability. 17 Based on a draft UNGA Resolution put forward by Bolivia, an ad hoc committee, in whose work all UN Member States and observers could participate, would have to be instituted. 18 This committee would be tasked with elaborating an international legal framework regulating sovereign debt restructuring processes following a process of inter-governmental negotiations. 19 The committee would give consideration to the views and comments submitted by UN Member States, inter-governmental organizations, regional commissions, academics, the private sector and NGO s External debt sustainability and development, supra note 1, ibid. 48, UNGA, Towards the establishment of a multilateral legal framework for sovereign debt restructuring processes (2014) A/ RES/68/ UNGA, Modalities for the intergovernmental negotiations and the adoption of a multilateral legal framework for sovereign debt restructuring processes (2014) A/c.2/69/L ibid. 20 ibid. McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP is an international law firm with more than 500 attorneys and public policy advisors in 15 offices and 13 markets. The firm is uniquely positioned at the intersection of law, business and government, representing clients in the areas of complex litigation, corporate law, energy, environment, finance, government contracts, health care, infrastructure, insurance, intellectual property, private client services, public policy, real estate, and technology. For more information, visit mckennalong.com. Albany l Atlanta l Brussels l Denver l Los Angeles l Miami l New York l Northern Virginia l Orange County l Rancho Santa Fe l San Diego l San Francisco l Seoul l Washington, DC
Case 1:08-cv TPG Document 353 Filed 12/07/11 Page 1 of 5
Case 108-cv-06978-TPG Document 353 Filed 12/07/11 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ---------------------------------------------x NML CAPITAL, LTD., Plaintiff, against
More informationBefore : MR JUSTICE DAVID RICHARDS Between :
Neutral Citation Number: [2015] EWHC 270 (Ch) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CHANCERY DIVISION Case No: HC-2014-000704 Royal Courts of Justice Rolls Building, Fetter Lane, London, EC4A 1NL Date: 13 February
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
11-431 din THE Supreme Court of the United States JENNY RUBIN et al., v. ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN, et al., Petitioners, Respondents. ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
More informationCase 1:06-cv TPG Document 45 Filed 04/29/16 Page 1 of 11. : : Defendant. :
Case 106-cv-03276-TPG Document 45 Filed 04/29/16 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK x MOHAMMAD LADJEVARDIAN, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. THE REPUBLIC OF ARGENTINA, Defendant.
More informationIn the Supreme Court of the United States
No. 12-842 In the Supreme Court of the United States REPUBLIC OF ARGENTINA, v. Petitioner NML CAPITAL, LTD., Respondent On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
More informationCase 1:14-cv TPG Document 42 Filed 02/11/16 Page 1 of 16
Case 1:14-cv-08303-TPG Document 42 Filed 02/11/16 Page 1 of 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK EM LTD., Plaintiff, v. No. 14 Civ. 8303 (TPG) THE REPUBLIC OF ARGENTINA, Defendant.
More informationResolution adopted by the General Assembly on 2 December [on the report of the Sixth Committee (A/59/508)]
United Nations A/RES/59/38 General Assembly Distr.: General 16 December 2004 Fifty-ninth session Agenda item 142 Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 2 December 2004 [on the report of the Sixth
More informationpìéêéãé=`çìêí=çñ=íüé=råáíéç=pí~íéë=
No. 12-842 IN THE pìéêéãé=`çìêí=çñ=íüé=råáíéç=pí~íéë= REPUBLIC OF ARGENTINA, v. NML CAPITAL, LTD., Petitioner, Respondent. On Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari To The United States Court Of Appeals For
More informationCase 1:16-cv TPG Document 1 Filed 03/25/16 Page 1 of 71
Case 1:16-cv-02238-TPG Document 1 Filed 03/25/16 Page 1 of 71 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ARAG-A Limited, ARAG-O Limited, ARAG-T Limited, ARAG-V Limited, Honero Fund I, LLC,
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2013 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT NML CAPITAL, LTD., AURELIUS CAPITAL MASTER, LTD., ACP MASTER, LTD., BLUE ANGEL CAPITAL I LLC, AURELIUS OPPORTUNITIES FUND II, LLC, PABLO ALBERTO
More informationLatham & Watkins Finance Department
Number 1147 February 17, 2011 Client Alert Latham & Watkins Finance Department The Settlement does not affirm or overturn Judge Peck s controversial decision in the US Litigation barring enforcement of
More informationscc Doc 15 Filed 06/19/18 Entered 06/19/18 12:49:01 Main Document Pg 1 of 10
Pg 1 of 10 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK In re Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (in administration), 1 Debtor in a Foreign Proceeding. Chapter 15 Case No. 18-11470
More information28. IT S A CONTACT SPORT: CORPORATE TRUST CONCERNS THAT BOND ATTORNEYS NEED TO ANTICIPATE. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. - Minneapolis, Minnesota
28. IT S A CONTACT SPORT: CORPORATE TRUST CONCERNS THAT BOND ATTORNEYS NEED TO ANTICIPATE Chair: Bryant D. Barber Lewis and Roca LLP - Phoenix, Arizona Panelists: Virginia A. Housum Patrick J. McLaughlin
More informationYear in Review: Three Noteworthy Decisions of 2017 under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act
LITIGATION CLIENT ALERT JANUARY 2018 Year in Review: Three Noteworthy Decisions of 2017 under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act In the United States, the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) governs
More informationcag Doc#413 Filed 04/02/18 Entered 04/02/18 13:54:23 Main Document Pg 1 of 8
18-50085-cag Doc#413 Filed 04/02/18 Entered 04/02/18 13:54:23 Main Document Pg 1 of 8 IT IS HEREBY ADJUDGED and DECREED that the below described is SO ORDERED. Dated: April 02, 2018. CRAIG A. GARGOTTA
More informationCase bjh11 Doc 957 Filed 04/16/19 Entered 04/16/19 14:24:44 Page 1 of 12
Case 18-33967-bjh11 Doc 957 Filed 04/16/19 Entered 04/16/19 14:24:44 Page 1 of 12 The following constitutes the ruling of the court and has the force and effect therein described. Signed April 16, 2019
More informationCase: Document: 509 Page: 1 12/03/ IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
Case: 12-105 Document: 509 Page: 1 12/03/2012 784064 594 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT NML CAPITAL, LTD., AURELIUS CAPITAL MASTER, LTD., ACP MASTER, LTD., BLUE ANGEL CAPITAL
More informationF R E Q U E N T L Y A S K E D Q U E S T I O N S A B O U T T H E T R U S T I N D E N T U R E A C T O F
F R E Q U E N T L Y A S K E D Q U E S T I O N S A B O U T T H E T R U S T I N D E N T U R E A C T O F 1 9 3 9 General What is the Trust Indenture Act and what does it govern? The Trust Indenture Act of
More informationCase 1:08-cv TPG Document 709 Filed 11/07/14 Page 1 of 18 Christopher Clark
Case 1:08-cv-06978-TPG Document 709 Filed 11/07/14 Page 1 of 18 Christopher Clark 53rd at Third Direct Dial: 1.212.906.1350 885 Third Avenue christopher.clark2@lw.com New York, New York 10022-4834 Tel:
More informationThe Supreme Court Decision in Empagran
The Supreme Court Decision On June 14, 2004, the United States Supreme Court issued its much anticipated opinion in Hoffmann-La Roche, Ltd. v. Empagran S.A, 2004 WL 1300131 (2004). This closely watched
More informationCase5:12-cv RMW Document41 Filed10/10/12 Page1 of 10
Case:-cv-0-RMW Document Filed0/0/ Page of 0 E-FILED on 0/0/ 0 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION REALTEK SEMICONDUCTOR CORPORATION, v. Plaintiff,
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT EMINENCE INVESTORS, L.L.L.P., an Arkansas Limited Liability Limited Partnership, Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
More informationThird Circuit Dismisses Crystallex s Fraudulent Transfer Claim But Potential Liability Remains for PDVSA
Third Circuit Dismisses Crystallex s Fraudulent Transfer Claim But Potential Liability Remains for PDVSA Richard J. Cooper & Boaz S. Morag 1 January 5, 2018 On January 3, 2018, the United States Court
More informationSUBROGATION & RECOVERY
www.cozen.com November 15, 2007 METHODS FOR ENFORCING CIVIL CIVIL JUDGMENTS JUDGMENTS IN ONTARIO IN ONTARIO PRINCIPAL OFFICE: OFFICE: PHILADELPHIA PHILADELPHIA (215) 665-2000 (800) 523-2900 CHARLOTTE CHARLOTTE
More informationLatham & Watkins Finance Department
Number 1025 May 13, 2010 Client Alert Latham & Watkins Finance Department Pending a decision on BNY s appeal, structured transaction and derivative lawyers should carefully consider the drafting of current
More informationCITIBANK, N.A. S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR PARTIAL RECONSIDERATION OF THE JUNE 27, 2014 ORDER
Case 108-cv-06978-TPG Document 591 Filed 07/17/14 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x NML CAPITAL,
More informationIFC INTERCONSULT, AG v. SAFEGUARD INTERN. PARTNERS, 356 F. Supp. 2d US: Dist. Court, ED Pennsylvania 2005
IFC INTERCONSULT, AG v. SAFEGUARD INTERN. PARTNERS, 356 F. Supp. 2d 503 - US: Dist. Court, ED Pennsylvania 2005 356 F.Supp.2d 503 (2005) In the Matter of the Arbitration between IFC INTERCONSULT, AG, Petitioner/Plaintiff,
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
12-105-cv(L) 12-109 -cv (CON), 12-111-cv (CON), 12-157-cv (CON), 12-158-cv (CON), 12-163-cv (CON), 12-164-cv (CON), 12-170-cv (CON), 12-176-cv (CON), 12-185-cv (CON), 12-189-cv (CON), 12-214-cv (CON),
More informationand Samantha Rae Bewick (together, the "Petitioners"), as the joint supervisors under the
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK In re: SCHEFENACKER PLC, Debtor in Foreign Proceeding. Chapter 15 Case No. 07-11482 (SMB) ORDER, PURSUANT TO 11 U.S.C. 105(a), 1507, 1517, AND
More informationNOTICE OF DEADLINE REQUIRING FILING OF PROOF OF CLAIM ON OR BEFORE DECEMBER 5, 2008
APPENDIX 1 14 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK In re Quebecor World (USA) Inc., et al., Debtors. Chapter 11 Case No. 08-10152(JMP) Jointly Administered Honorable James M. Peck
More informationEnforcement of Foreign Orders Under Chapter 15
Enforcement of Foreign Orders Under Chapter 15 Jeanne P. Darcey Amy A. Zuccarello Sullivan & Worcester LLP June 15, 2012 CHAPTER 15: 11 U.S.C. 1501 et seq. Purpose of chapter 15 is to Provide effective
More informationCase3:06-mc SI Document105 Filed06/03/10 Page1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case:0-mc-0-SI Document0 Filed0/0/0 Page of 0 0 KRONENBERGER BURGOYNE, LLP Karl S. Kronenberger (Bar No. ) Henry M. Burgoyne, III (Bar No. 0) Jeffrey M. Rosenfeld (Bar No. ) 0 Post Street, Suite 0 San
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON. NO. CV LRS LICENSING, et al. ) ) Plaintiffs,
Case :-cv-0-lrs Document Filed 0/0/ 0 0 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON STATE OF WASHINGTON, ) WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT NO. CV---LRS LICENSING, et al. ) ) Plaintiffs, ) MOTION
More informationDoes a Civil Protective Order Protect a Company s Foreign Based Documents from Being Produced in a Related Criminal Investigation?
Does a Civil Protective Order Protect a Company s Foreign Based Documents from Being Produced in a Related Criminal Investigation? Contributed by Thomas P. O Brien and Daniel Prince, Paul Hastings LLP
More informationIn the Supreme Court of the United States
No. 12-842 In the Supreme Court of the United States REPUBLIC OF ARGENTINA, Petitioner, v. NML CAPITAL, LTD., Respondent. On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
More informationTITLE 6 SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY
TITLE 6 SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY Contents of Title 6 Chapter 1 - Sovereign Immunity Waiver Chapter 2 - Waiver of Sovereign Immunity and Jurisdiction in Commercial Transactions Chapter 3 - Notice Ordinance Chapter
More informationCase 1:08-cv TPG Document 602 Filed 07/21/14 Page 1 of against - : :
Case 108-cv-06978-TPG Document 602 Filed 07/21/14 Page 1 of 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ----------------------------------------------------------------------- X NML CAPITAL,
More informationCRS Report for Congress
CRS Report for Congress Received through the CRS Web Order Code RS22094 Updated April 4, 2005 Summary Lawsuits Against State Supporters of Terrorism: An Overview Jennifer K. Elsea Legislative Attorney
More informationOctober 11, Drafting Committee, Uniform Apportionment of Tort Responsibility Act (Fifth Tentative Draft)
October 11, 2001 To: From: Drafting Committee, Uniform Apportionment of Tort Responsibility Act (Fifth Tentative Draft) Roger Henderson, Reporter Re: Seattle, Washington Drafting Committee Meeting, November
More informationRecent Developments in Ancillary Proceedings in the United States Bankruptcy Courts
INTERNATIONAL BAR ASSOCIATION C OMMITTEE J NEWS VOL.XIII, NO.2, SEPTEMBER 2003 Recent Developments in Ancillary Proceedings in the United States Bankruptcy Courts By Christopher R. Donoho, Brian M. Cogan
More informationCase 1:08-cv TPG Document 583 Filed 07/11/14 Page 1 of 7. x : : : : : : : : : x : : : : : : : : : : : : x : : : : : : : : : : : : x
Case 108-cv-06978-TPG Document 583 Filed 07/11/14 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK NML CAPITAL, LTD., AURELIUS CAPITAL MASTER, LTD. and ACP MASTER, LTD., Plaintiffs,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA INTRODUCTION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA KAREN MACKALL, v. Plaintiff, HEALTHSOURCE GLOBAL STAFFING, INC., Defendant. Case No. -cv-0-who ORDER DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION Re:
More informationby Santiago Carregal 1
M A R V A L, O ' F A R R E L L & M A I R A L Telecom Argentina: Argentina s largest Restructuring and Cross Border Insolvency Case by Santiago Carregal 1 This memorandum will discuss the most relevant
More informationThe Hegemonic Arbitrator Replaces Foreign Sovereignty: A Comment on Chevron v. Republic of Ecuador
Arbitration Law Review Volume 8 Yearbook on Arbitration and Mediation Article 10 5-1-2016 The Hegemonic Arbitrator Replaces Foreign Sovereignty: A Comment on Chevron v. Republic of Ecuador Camille Hart
More informationPatent Litigation in China & Amicus Curiae in the U.S. William (Skip) Fisher Partner, Shanghai. EPLAW Congress, 22 November 2013
Patent Litigation in China & Amicus Curiae in the U.S. William (Skip) Fisher Partner, Shanghai EPLAW Congress, 22 November 2013 What I will cover Considerations for patent litigation in China Anatomy of
More informationCase tnw Doc 29 Filed 11/15/16 Entered 11/15/16 14:10:56 Desc Main Document Page 1 of 10
Document Page 1 of 10 IN RE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY PIKEVILLE DIVISION PATRICIA EILEEN NELSON CASE NO. 11-70281 DEBTOR ALI ZADEH V. PATRICIA EILEEN NELSON PLAINTIFF
More informationFollow this and additional works at: Part of the International Law Commons
Maryland Journal of International Law Volume 30 Issue 1 Symposium: "Investor-State Disputes" Article 6 The Impact of Republic of Argentina v. NML Capital, Ltd.: Why the Supreme Court s Ruling Against Argentina
More informationPRINCIPLES OF EUROPEAN CONTRACT LAW
25 May 2002 PRINCIPLES OF EUROPEAN CONTRACT LAW TEXT OF ARTICLES IN PART 3 IN ENGLISH 1 ENGLISH TEXT CHAPTER 10 Plurality of parties Section 1: Plurality of debtors ARTICLE 10:101: SOLIDARY, SEPARATE AND
More informationMarch 2016 INVESTOR TERMS OF SERVICE
March 2016 INVESTOR TERMS OF SERVICE This Agreement is between you and Financial Pulse Limited and sets out the terms on which Financial Pulse offers you access to and use of certain services via the online
More informationUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION - DETROIT
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION - DETROIT IN RE: MCKUHEN, CATHY, Debtor. Case No. 08-54027 Chapter 13 Hon. Walter Shapero / OPINION REGARDING DEBTOR S COUNSEL
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE NASHVILLE DIVISION MEMORANDUM
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE NASHVILLE DIVISION LORRIE THOMPSON ) ) v. ) NO. 3-13-0817 ) JUDGE CAMPBELL AMERICAN MORTGAGE EXPRESS ) CORPORATION, et al. ) MEMORANDUM
More informationAdvisory. Seventh Circuit Rejects Bond Indenture and Its Waiver of Tribal Sovereign Immunity, But Allows Leave to Amend for Equitable Claims
Advisory Insolvency & Restructuring Finance October 31, 2011 Seventh Circuit Rejects Bond Indenture and Its Waiver of Tribal Sovereign Immunity, But Allows Leave to Amend for Equitable Claims by Blaine
More information2 New Decisions Clarify Chapter 15 Requirements
Portfolio Media. Inc. 111 West 19 th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10011 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com 2 New Decisions Clarify Chapter 15 Requirements
More informationLegal Opinion Regarding Florida's Garnishment Law In Relation To The City Of Coral Gables' Duties And Obligations
CAO 213-36 To: Craig E. Leen From: Bridgette N. Thornton Richard, Deputy City Attorney for the City of Coral Gables; Yaneris Figueroa, Special Counsel to the City Attorney's Office Approved: Craig Leen,
More informationWELLS FARGO BANK N.A., Petitioner,
IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE WELLS FARGO BANK N.A., Petitioner, v. THE HONORABLE JOSHUA ROGERS, Judge of the SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA, in and for the County of MARICOPA, Respondent
More informationsmb Doc 30 Filed 11/15/18 Entered 11/15/18 12:02:13 Main Document Pg 1 of 5
Pg 1 of 5 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK In re: Chapter 15 NOBLE GROUP LIMITED, Case No. 18-13133 (SMB) Debtor in a Foreign Proceeding. 1 ORDER GRANTING VERIFIED PETITION
More informationPAYMENT DEDUCTION AUTHORIZATION AND AGREEMENT
PAYMENT DEDUCTION AUTHORIZATION AND AGREEMENT By signing this Payment Deduction Authorization and Agreement (this Authorization ), (referred to herein as the Driver, I, me or my ) acknowledges, authorizes
More informationCase: , 02/14/2017, ID: , DktEntry: 73-1, Page 1 of 6 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Case: 15-16480, 02/14/2017, ID: 10318773, DktEntry: 73-1, Page 1 of 6 (1 of 11) NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FILED FEB 14 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE
Case :-cv-0-rsl Document 0 Filed 0// Page of 0 MONEY MAILER, LLC, v. WADE G. BREWER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE Plaintiff, Defendant. WADE G. BREWER, v. Counterclaim
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MARGARET A. APAO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. THE BANK OF NEW YORK, as Trustee for Amresco Residential Securities Corporation Mortgage No.
More informationENERGY CONSERVATION AGREEMENT executed by the BONNEVILLE POWER ADMINISTRATION and CITY OF ASHLAND. Table of Contents
Contract No. ENERGY CONSERVATION AGREEMENT executed by the BONNEVILLE POWER ADMINISTRATION and CITY OF ASHLAND Table of Contents Section Page 1. Term... 2 2. Definitions... 2 3. Purchase of Energy Savings...
More informationTITLE 6 SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY
TITLE 6 SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY Contents of Title 6 Chapter 1 - Sovereign Immunity Waiver Chapter 2 - Waiver of Sovereign Immunity and Jurisdiction in Commercial Transactions Chapter 3 - Notice Ordinance Chapter
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
CENTER CAPITAL CORPORATION v. PRA AVIATION, LLC et al Doc. 67 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CENTER CAPITAL CORP., : Plaintiff, : CIVIL ACTION : v. : : PRA
More informationCase 2:09-cv DPH-MJH Document 28 Filed 01/20/2010 Page 1 of 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
Case 2:09-cv-13505-DPH-MJH Document 28 Filed 01/20/2010 Page 1 of 14 IN RE: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION The Bankruptcy Court s Use of a Standardized Form
More informationNew York Court of Appeals Permits Extraterritorial Seizure of Assets in Aid of Judgments
June 2009 New York Court of Appeals Permits Extraterritorial Seizure of Assets in Aid of Judgments BY JAMES E. BERGER Introduction On June 4, 2009, the New York Court of Appeals issued its ruling in Koehler
More informationPrinciples on Conflict of Laws in Intellectual Property
Principles on Conflict of Laws in Intellectual Property Prepared by the European Max Planck Group on Conflict of Laws in Intellectual Property (CLIP) Final Text 1 December 2011 CLIP Principles PREAMBLE...
More informationThe Latest On Fee-Shifting In Patent Cases
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com The Latest On Fee-Shifting In Patent Cases Law360,
More informationDispute Resolution Around the World. Germany
Dispute Resolution Around the World Germany Dispute Resolution Around the World Germany 2011 Dispute Resolution Around the World Germany Table of Contents 1. Legal System... 1 2. Courts... 1 3. Legal
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION. Case No. 3:16-cv-178-J-MCR ORDER
Case 3:16-cv-00178-MCR Document 61 Filed 10/24/17 Page 1 of 9 PageID 927 MARY R. JOHNSON, Plaintiff, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION vs. Case No. 3:16-cv-178-J-MCR
More informationCase KJC Doc 25 Filed 11/22/17 Page 1 of 13 IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Case 16-12590-KJC Doc 25 Filed 11/22/17 Page 1 of 13 IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE In re: ABENGOA CONCESSIONS INVESTMENTS LIMITED, 1 Debtor in a Foreign Proceeding.
More informationUnited States District Court
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION AMKOR TECHNOLOGY, INC., 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 v. TESSERA, INC., Petitioner(s), Respondent(s). / ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENT
More informationmg Doc 22 Filed 06/16/16 Entered 06/16/16 16:05:56 Main Document Pg 1 of 6
Pg 1 of 6 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK In re: Chapter 15 WINSWAY ENTERPRISES HOLDINGS LIMITED, f/k/a WINSWAY COKING COAL HOLDINGS LIMITED, a company incorporated with limited
More informationChicken or Egg: Applying the Age- Old Question to Class Waivers in Employee Arbitration Agreements
Chicken or Egg: Applying the Age- Old Question to Class Waivers in Employee Arbitration Agreements By Bonnie Burke, Lawrence & Bundy LLC and Christina Tellado, Reed Smith LLP Companies with employees across
More informationSupreme Court of Florida
Supreme Court of Florida No. SC96000 PROVIDENT MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, Petitioner, vs. CITY OF TREASURE ISLAND, Respondent. PARIENTE, J. [May 24, 2001] REVISED OPINION We have for review a decision of
More informationAgreement to UOB Banker s Guarantee Terms and Conditions
Agreement to UOB Banker s Guarantee Terms and Conditions In consideration of United Overseas Bank Limited (the Bank ) agreeing at the Applicant s request to issue the Banker s Guarantee, the Applicant
More informationCase 1:08-cv TPG Document 864 Filed 02/11/16 Page 1 of 17. Plaintiff, Defendant. Plaintiff, Defendant. Plaintiff, Defendant.
Case 108-cv-06978-TPG Document 864 Filed 02/11/16 Page 1 of 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK NML CAPITAL, Plaintiff, 08 Civ. 6978 (TPG) 09 Civ. 1707 (TPG) 09 Civ. 1708 (TPG)
More informationIt s a Contact Sport: Default Administration Concerns That Bond Attorneys Need to Anticipate
37 th Bond Attorneys Workshop October 24-26, 2012 Sheraton Chicago Hotel & Towers It s a Contact Sport: Default Administration Concerns That Bond Attorneys Need to Anticipate 1 Panelists Bryant D. Barber
More informationALI-ABA Course of Study Commercial Lending and Banking Law. April 19-21, 2007 San Francisco, California. Insolvency, Bankruptcy, and Workouts
409 ALI-ABA Course of Study Commercial Lending and Banking Law April 19-21, 2007 San Francisco, California Insolvency, Bankruptcy, and Workouts By Steven H. Felderstein Felderstein Fitzgerald Willoughby
More informationTECHNOLOGY & BUSINESS LAW ADVISORS, LLC
TECHNOLOGY & BUSINESS LAW ADVISORS, LLC www.tblawadvisors.com Fall 2011 Business Implications of the 2011 Leahy-Smith America Invents Act On September 16, 2011, the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA)
More informationCLIFFORD CHANCE LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP
CLIFFORD CHANCE LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP SCXP/C1458/04790/HNM 16 February 2000 The Bond Market Association 40 Broad Street New York NY 10004-2373 USA Dear Sirs Cross-Product Master Agreement 1. INTRODUCTION
More informationCAAP IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I
CAAP-14-0000920 IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I SHIGEZO HAWAII, INC., a Hawai'i Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SOY TO THE WORLD INCORPORATED, a Hawai'i Corporation; INOC
More informationIllinois Official Reports
Illinois Official Reports Appellate Court Schrempf, Kelly, Napp & Darr, Ltd. v. Carpenters Health & Welfare Trust Fund, 2015 IL App (5th) 130413 Appellate Court Caption SCHREMPF, KELLY, NAPP AND DARR,
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON
No. 295 June 20, 2018 463 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, LLC, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Jason SANDERS, Defendant-Appellant. Multnomah County Circuit Court
More informationwhich shall govern any matters not specifically addressed in these rules.
INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION PART RULES -- PART 53 These International Arbitration Part Rules supplement the Part 53 Practice Rules, which shall govern any matters not specifically addressed in these rules.
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Case: 13-56657, 06/08/2016, ID: 10006069, DktEntry: 32-1, Page 1 of 11 (1 of 16) FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DEBORAH A. LYONS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MICHAEL &
More informationAcademy of Court- Appointed Masters. Section 2. Appointment Orders
Academy of Court- Appointed Masters Appointing Special Masters and Other Judicial Adjuncts A Handbook for Judges and Lawyers January 2013 Section 2. Appointment Orders The appointment order is the fundamental
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION
Case 1:06-cv-00949 Document 121 Filed 12/13/2007 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION G.M. SIGN, INC., Plaintiff, vs. 06 C 949 FRANKLIN BANK, S.S.B.,
More informationDEFENCES TO ENFORCEMENT OF FOREIGN JUDGMENTS AND AWARDS IN ENGLAND
DEFENCES TO ENFORCEMENT OF FOREIGN JUDGMENTS AND AWARDS IN ENGLAND 1. Sovereign immunity as a defence to enforcement of foreign judgments and awards in England. Overview Sovereign immunity derives from
More informationCase 2:15-cv LDD Document 54 Filed 12/12/16 Page 1 of 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Case 2:15-cv-01243-LDD Document 54 Filed 12/12/16 Page 1 of 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA JANELL MOORE, et al. : CIVIL ACTION on behalf of themselves and
More informationChanges to the Russian Civil Code: What's new in the regulation of obligations
Changes to the Russian Civil Code: What's new in the regulation of obligations 1 Briefing note May 2015 Changes to the Russian Civil Code: What's new in the regulation of obligations As of 1 June 2015,
More informationA KEEN SIGNATURE SERVICES, LLC Independent Contractor Agreement
A KEEN SIGNATURE SERVICES, LLC Independent Contractor Agreement Parties: Agent - Notary - Signing Agents (hereinafter referred to as, Independent Contractor ) and A Keen Signature Services, LLC P.O. Box
More information16-628(L) United States Court of Appeals (CON), (CON), (CON), (CON), (CON), (CON),
Case 16-628, Document 417, 03/21/2016, 1732816, Page1 of 105 16-628(L) 16-639(CON), 16-640(CON), 16-641(CON), 16-642(CON), 16-643(CON), 16-644(CON), 16-649(CON), 16-650(CON), 16-651(CON), 16-653(CON),
More informationPreliminary Injunctive Relief to Protect Trade Secrets and Enforce Non-Competes:
1 Preliminary Injunctive Relief to Protect Trade Secrets and Enforce Non-Competes: Is It Possible To Put The Toothpaste Back In The Tube? Attorney Advertising Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome
More informationCase 1:11-cv LG -RHW Document 32 Filed 12/08/11 Page 1 of 11
Case 1:11-cv-00187-LG -RHW Document 32 Filed 12/08/11 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI SOUTHERN DIVISION CHRISTOPHER G. BATTLE and REBECCA L. BATTLE
More informationCase 1:14-cv DPG Document 97 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/11/2018 Page 1 of 11
Case 1:14-cv-22069-DPG Document 97 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/11/2018 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA MIAMI DIVISION ROBERT A. SCHREIBER, individually and on behalf
More informationA GUIDE TO CHAPTER 9 OF THE BANKRUPTCY CODE: WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW
A GUIDE TO CHAPTER 9 OF THE BANKRUPTCY CODE: WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW By: Judith Greenstone Miller Paul R. Hage June, 2013 If Kevin Orr, the Emergency Manager for the City of Detroit, is unable to effectuate
More information1. Minor criminal cases and civil disputes are decided in the appellate courts.
Chapter 02 The Resolution of Private Disputes True / False Questions 1. Minor criminal cases and civil disputes are decided in the appellate courts. True False 2. The plaintiff can sue the defendant in
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No Non-Argument Calendar. D.C. Docket No.
Case: 15-12066 Date Filed: 11/16/2015 Page: 1 of 12 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 15-12066 Non-Argument Calendar D.C. Docket No. 1:12-cv-01397-SCJ
More informationFedERAL LIABILITY. Has the United States Waived Sovereign Immunity Through the Tucker Act for Damages Claims Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act?
FedERAL LIABILITY Has the United States Waived Sovereign Immunity Through the Tucker Act for Damages Claims Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act? CASE AT A GLANCE The United States is asking the Court to
More information