News

Immigration

Read More

Case Summaries

Corporation & Enterprise Law

[12/29] Abbotts v. Campbell
Participants in a Common Stock Purchase Agreement failed to show that the nondisclosure of a waiver of certain provisions of that Agreement was a proximate cause of their investment losses. The investors also failed to show that they exercised reasonable diligence warranting equitable tolling of the six-year statute of limitations specified by Minnesota Statute section 541.05.

[12/29] People v. Roscoe
Following judgment finding defendants jointly and severally liable for penalties pursuant to laws governing underground storage of hazardous substances, judgment against defendant is affirmed where the responsible corporate officer doctrine applies to Health and Safety Code section 25299(a)(6) of the tank laws and thus subjects to liability as an "operator" a corporate officer who had "a responsible share in the furtherance of the transaction which the statute outlaws", even where the corporation itself was also found to be the operator.

Read More

Commercial Law

[12/31] Gen. Store, Inc. v. Van Loan
Revocation of a federal firearms dealer license for willful violations of federal and state firearms laws is affirmed. A violation of the Gun Control Act requires a willful violation that is "a deliberate, knowing, or reckless violation of its requirements," and both of plaintiff's violations satisfied this standard.

[12/31] US Motors v. Gen. Motors Europe
District court correctly dismissed this case, brought by domestic and foreign plaintiffs against a foreign defendant, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The presence of foreign parties on both sides of the dispute destroyed the complete diversity required by 28 U.S.C. section 1332(a)(2).

Read More

Bankruptcy Law

[12/31] In the Matter of: Owens
Bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing debtor's bad-faith Chapter 11 case rather than converting it to Chapter 7. When deciding between dismissal and conversion under 11 U.S.C. section 1112(b), the court must consider the interests of all the creditors; here, the other creditors would fare worse under Chapter 7 because the accompanying discharge would deny them access to debtor's future income.

[12/31] In re: Belcher
District court erred in allowing bankrupt husband to claim a homestead exemption in marital home because wife's name alone appeared on the title. Husband's potential equitable property interests in the home under divorce law, and his "possessory interest" in the family residence as spouse of the homeowner, were insufficient to permit him to claim the homestead exemption.

Read More

Banking Law

[12/30] In re: Marshall
Balance transfers from one credit card to another, made by debtors during the ninety-day period prior to the filing of their Chapter 7 petition, are preferential transfers under 11 U.S.C. section 547(b). Such payments constitute transfers of "an interest of the Debtor in property," because the debtor exercises control over the loaned proceeds even if he is never in actual possession of them, and such transactions deplete the bankruptcy estate.

[12/30] Helms v. CPC Acquisition, Inc.
Corporate-debtor's proceeds from lawsuit against its insurance broker for failure to obtain business-loss insurance are not considered "proceeds of collateral" under the UCC, and therefore the bank holding a security interest in debtor's damaged collateral was not entitled to proceeds from that lawsuit. Bank's secondary argument, that it is entitled to lawsuit's proceeds because it holds a security interest in all of debtor's commercial tort claims by virtue of provision in loan agreement, fails because the bank did not list the lawsuit among the "commercial tort claims" in which it holds a security interest.

Read More

Associated Press text, photo, graphic, audio and/or video material shall not be published, broadcast, rewritten for broadcast or publication or redistributed directly or indirectly in any medium. Neither these AP materials nor any portion thereof may be stored in a computer except for personal and non-commercial use. Users may not download or reproduce a substantial portion of the AP material found on this web site. AP will not be held liable for any delays, inaccuracies, errors or omissions therefrom or in the transmission or delivery of all or any part thereof or for any damages arising from any of the foregoing.


Englewood, NJ • Bergen County
Business Law Attorneys • Divorce and Family Law
Toll-Free: 877-833-5489
The Englewood, New Jersey law firm of Klein & Radol LLC serves the residents of Bergen County, Morris County, Passaic County, and Hudson County, including Englewood Cliffs, Hackensack, Teaneck, Tenafly, Closter, Demarest, Alpine, Bergenfield, Fort Lee, Paramus, Wayne, Fair Lawn, Jersey City, Morristown, and surrounding communities.