On March 25, 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit dealt another setback to plaintiffs trying to establish Article III standing to assert a claim under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1681, et seq. (“FCRA”). In five related FCRA appeals combined in Jaras v. Equifax, Inc., 2019 WL 1373198 (9th Cir. Mar.
As discussed in an earlier post called “Moving Up: Bankruptcy Code Dollar Amounts Will Increase On April 1, 2019,” various dollar amounts in the Bankruptcy Code and related statutory provisions were increased for cases filed on or after today, April 1, 2019.
Imagine this: a contractor undertakes to perform certain works by a specified date, and agrees to pay liquidated damages (LDs) if it does not complete by that date (subject to any entitlement to an extension of time). The contractor, through its own fault, is late and does not complete by the specified date. In fact, the contractor is very late and, in the end, the employer terminates the contract before the works are completed (as it is entitled to do under the contract).
The Supreme Court held oral argument earlier today in the Mission Products v. Tempnology case, on the issue of the effect of rejection by a licensor of a trademark license on the licensee’s rights.
In the In re FirstEnergy Solutions Corporation bankruptcy cases,[1] the court recently issued an opinion narrowing the number of situations in which a fixed
An official notice from the Judicial Conference of the United States was just published announcing that certain dollar amounts in the Bankruptcy Code will be increased about 6.2% this time for new cases filed on or after April 1, 2019.
The Big Question. What is the effect of rejection of a trademark license by a debtor-licensor? Over the past few years, this blog has followed the Tempnology case out of New Hampshire raising just that issue.
The appointment of a receivership is an incredibly useful tool for lawyers. Since it is such a useful tool and due to a recent ruling in Texas, we thought now was as good as any to brush up on our familiarity with receiverships.
自己破産というのは、借金を返すことがもう絶対にできないということを裁判所に理解してもらい、法律上で、借金をなくしてもらうことができるやり方です。生活する中で、最低限必要な財産以外のものは、何もかも失うことになります。 日本の国民であるならば、誰もが自己破産ができるのです。
本来、債務は自分で返済すべきですが、どうにも返済の見込みが立たないときには、債務整理を考えてみるべきです。 一般的に債務整理が必要かどうか判断するタイミングというのは、毎月の返済が収入の３割以上に及ぶ場合が妥当な時期のようです。任意整理で弁護士等を訪れるのはこのタイミングが一番多いです。予定していた日に返済が行われないと、貸した側から次の日には支払いに関しての連絡がくるでしょう。
次の支払い予定日を聞かれるのでそこで約束すれば、あとでしつこく電話がかかってくることもありません。
しかし、もしその期日に約束を果たさないと、また催促の連絡がきて、やがて訴訟に発展する可能性もあります。
どうあがいても返済不能な状態に陥ったら、任意整理、個人再生、自己破産といった債務手続きをするという手があります。
どういった形で債務者が借金を整理するかによって債務整理には４つの方法があります。
Whether liquidated damages (LDs) can be claimed after termination is a question which comes up regularly. It is very relevant in the current climate where contracts are often terminated following contractor insolvency. If I were devising a construction law exam paper, this classic question would undoubtedly appear.