Newsroom Categories: Coverage

  • FTC, State Scrutiny of Noncompetes Shifts Labor Market

    FTC, State Scrutiny of Noncompetes Shifts Labor Market

    COVERAGE

    FTC, State Scrutiny of Noncompetes Shifts Labor Market

    July 17, 2024

    Read time: 2 min

    About Us

    Brian Mead

    Partner

    Chicago

    You may also like

  • State of 2024 Energy Dealmaking: Midyear Report

    State of 2024 Energy Dealmaking: Midyear Report

    COVERAGE

    State of 2024 Energy Dealmaking: Midyear Report

    July 18, 2024

    Read time: 2 min

    About Us

    Carl J. Fleming

    Partner

    Washington, DC

    You may also like

  • “We have built up a strong client base”

    “We have built up a strong client base”

    COVERAGE

    “We have built up a strong client base”

    July 23, 2024

    Read time: 2 min

    Dr. Matthias Kampshoff and Dr. Jens Ortmanns discussed the full-service offering and strategy of McDermott Will & Emery in Germany and the next stages of the firm’s development in an interview with Börsen-Zeitung.

    About Us

    Dr. Matthias Kampshoff

    Partner

    Düsseldorf

    Dr. Jens Ortmanns

    Partner

    Düsseldorf, Cologne

    You may also like

  • Deal Watch: What Does Biden’s Exit Mean for the Deal Market?

    Deal Watch: What Does Biden’s Exit Mean for the Deal Market?

    COVERAGE

    Deal Watch: What Does Biden’s Exit Mean for the Deal Market?

    July 22, 2024

    Read time: 2 min

    About Us

    Sam Snider

    Partner

    Atlanta

    You may also like

  • ITU Applicants Beware: Federal Courts Have Jurisdiction Over Pending Trademark Applications

    ITU Applicants Beware: Federal Courts Have Jurisdiction Over Pending Trademark Applications

    COVERAGE

    ITU Applicants Beware: Federal Courts Have Jurisdiction Over Pending Trademark Applications

    July 22, 2024

    Read time: 2 min

    About Us

    Amol Parikh

    Partner

    Chicago

    Cecilia Choy PhD

    Associate

    Silicon Valley

    You may also like

  • Appellate Courts Skeptical About Bankruptcy Court Sanctions

    Appellate Courts Skeptical About Bankruptcy Court Sanctions

    COVERAGE

    Appellate Courts Skeptical About Bankruptcy Court Sanctions

    July 2024

    Read time: 3 min

    In his latest article for The Bankruptcy Strategist titled, “Appellate Courts Skeptical About Bankruptcy Court Sanctions,” Schulte Roth & Zabel of counsel Michael L. Cook discusses recent appellate decisions showing a distaste for appeals from bankruptcy court sanction orders. A split Fourth Circuit even refused to hear such an appeal. Other courts tend to limit sanctions or, alternatively, accept a bankruptcy judge’s findings under a stringent “abuse of discretion” standard.

    The Fifth Circuit, for example, takes a balanced approach. “[Bankruptcy courts have only civil contempt powers because that is all Congress has given them …. Accordingly, bankruptcy courts may issue contempt orders, but any contempt sanction imposed by a bankruptcy court must be civil” — compensatory, not punitive. In re Highland Capital Management, 2024 WL 1450065, *2 (5th Cir. Apr. 4, 2024) (2-1). Accord, In re Markus, 78 F.4th 554, 563 n.5 (2d Cir. 2023). A split Fourth Circuit, as noted, went further: a bankruptcy court’s “civil contempt and sanctions orders … for violating a discovery order are interlocutory and cannot be immediately appealed as of right.” In re Bestwall, LLC, 2024 WL 1841960, (4th Cir. Apr. 29, 2024) (2-1). The Second Circuit takes a more nuanced approach. PHH Mortg. Corp. v Senesenich (In re Gravel), 6 F. 4th 503, 511, 513 (2d Cir. 2021). (“A bankruptcy court’s award of sanctions, including findings of contempt, are reviewed [on appeal] for abuse of discretion;” reviewed under 28 U.S.C. § 158 (d)(2)(A) (after certification); “this court has a duty to conduct its own ‘exacting’ review of contempt orders;” bankruptcy court cannot “hold a party in contempt for violating an order that is subject to varying interpretations”).

    Read the article here.

    About Us
    You may also like

  • 1 Year at the UPC: Implications for Transatlantic Disputes

    1 Year at the UPC: Implications for Transatlantic Disputes

    COVERAGE

    1 Year at the UPC: Implications for Transatlantic Disputes

    July 17, 2024

    Read time: 3 min

    Last month, the Unified Patent Court (UPC) celebrated its one-year anniversary after it launched in 17 countries across Europe. During this time, it has significantly impacted many industries and fields, including medical devices, pharmaceuticals and various electronics. Decisions on key issues have undoubtedly contributed to the UPC’s growth, already establishing the new court as a popular venue for patent disputes.

    In this article, Chuck Larsen, Aashish Kapadia and Charles de Raignac explore the significant decisions that are shaping the court’s direction, particularly in transatlantic disputes. Patent holders should be aware of these decisions and stay attuned of upcoming decisions that will continue to develop the UPC’s law and practice and shape its future usage.

    Karen Gover contributed to the development of this article.

    About Us
    You may also like

  • SAIGroup’s Acquisition of Get Well

    SAIGroup’s Acquisition of Get Well

    COVERAGE

    SAIGroup’s Acquisition of Get Well

    July 18, 2024

    Read time: 2 min

    About Us

    Ann Marie Brodarick

    Partner

    Chicago

    Terry Brennan

    Partner

    Chicago

    Brandon Sarkauskas

    Associate

    Chicago

    Emily R. Curran

    Associate

    Washington, DC

    Margaret Houtz

    Associate

    Boston

    Samantha Pearsall

    Associate

    Boston

    Sam Siegfried

    Partner

    Chicago

    Jeffrey M. Holdvogt

    Partner

    Chicago

    You may also like

  • Legal Updates: Crossover Beverage Guidance Takes Shape, DTC Laws Advance

    Legal Updates: Crossover Beverage Guidance Takes Shape, DTC Laws Advance

    COVERAGE

    Legal Updates: Crossover Beverage Guidance Takes Shape, DTC Laws Advance

    July 18, 2024

    Read time: 2 min

    About Us

    Alva C. Mather

    Partner

    Washington, DC

    Christine Dower

    Counsel

    Washington, DC

    You may also like

  • The Jury’s Not Out: Supreme Court’s Jarkesy Decision Limits SEC’s Use of Administrative Proceedings in Fraud Cases

    The Jury’s Not Out: Supreme Court’s Jarkesy Decision Limits SEC’s Use of Administrative Proceedings in Fraud Cases

    COVERAGE

    The Jury’s Not Out: Supreme Court’s Jarkesy Decision Limits SEC’s Use of Administrative Proceedings in Fraud Cases

    July 18, 2024

    Read time: 2 min

    The US Supreme Court recently decided a high-profile constitutional issue that has far-reaching implications for the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and its enforcement authority. The Supreme Court’s ruling in SEC v. Jarkesy limits the SEC’s ability to bring enforcement actions seeking penalties in its own administrative courts, requiring the SEC to bring its actions in federal court before an Article III judge instead.

    In this article, Paul Helms, Caitlyn Campbell and DC Wolf examine the decision and the implications of limiting the reach of SEC administrative proceedings.

     

    About Us

    Paul M.G. Helms

    Partner

    Chicago, Washington, DC

    DC Wolf

    Partner

    Chicago

    You may also like