Your search for ‘Paul Hastings’ returned 411 results

On October 25, 2011, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, sitting en banc, decided Sarei v. Rio Tinto, PLC.

On August 16, 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decided Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., No. 2010-1406, on remand from the Supreme Court to consider the impact of Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus, Inc., 566 U.S. ___, 132 S. Ct. 1289 (2012).

On July 26, 2011, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network ("FinCEN") issued a long-awaited final rule implementing the Bank Secrecy Act ("BSA") applicable to Money Services Businesses ("MSBs") with regard to stored value, or prepaid access ("Prepaid Access Final Rule" or "Final Rule").

On January 26, 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued its long-anticipated ruling in Chevron Corp. v. Naranjo,1 in which it previously vacated an anti-enforcement judgment prohibiting a group of Ecuadorian plaintiffs from seeking to enforce an $18 billion judgment anywhere outside of Ecuador.

It has long been the case that third party beneficiaries may, under certain circumstances, enforce a contract to which they are not a party.

On March 1, 2013, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held in "In re Texas Grand Prairie Hotel Realty" that a bankruptcy court did not err when it confirmed a "cramdown" chapter 11 plan that proposed to pay a dissenting secured lender interest calculated at the national prime rate plus 1.75%.

On July 29, 2011, The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decided "Ass'n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc. See" No. 2010-1406 (Fed. Cir. July 29, 2011).

Recently a purported shareholder of certain special purpose acquisition companies (SPACs) initiated derivative lawsuits asserting that the SPACs are investment companies...

Recently a purported shareholder of certain special purpose acquisition companies (SPACs) initiated derivative lawsuits asserting that the SPACs are investment companies under the Investment Company...

Much has been written about the California Supreme Court’s developing jurisprudence regarding the standing requirements of California’s Unfair Competition Law ("UCL") Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq. and California’s False Advertising Law ("FAL") Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500, et seq., specifically in the wake of the Court’s opinions in In re Tobacco II Cases, 46 Cal. 4th 298 (2009) and Kwikset Corp. v. Super. Ct. (Benson), 51 Cal. 4th 310 (2011).

This year's ACI ITC Litigation and Enforcement Conference did not disappoint, delivering keynotes and panels on critical issues impacting the ITC. WIT was proud to sponsor the event once again and is pleased...

On June 22, 2011, the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") adopted rules and rule amendments (the "Final Rules") designed to implement a number of significant changes applicable to private investment funds and their managers imposed by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the "Dodd-Frank Act").

In a recent "StayCurrent", we wrote about two major rulings in the ongoing dispute between the Chevron Corporation, a group of plaintiffs seeking compensation for alleged environmental damage resulting from oil exploration in the Ecuadorian rain forest, and the Republic of Ecuador itself.

On November 5, 2012, the Supreme Court heard arguments in Amgen Inc. v. Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Funds ("Amgen"), a matter that will decide whether plaintiffs in federal securities fraud actions must establish materiality before obtaining class certification.

A discussion on the particular issues and concerns raised by the final rule, as well as the potential impact on the rule from the recent Federal Court of Appeals case striking down the recess appointments of three NLRB members who were appointed on the same day as CFPB Director.