The Journey of Litigation
Quick Guide to Administrative Hearings
Wire Fraud Litigants Beware: Fourth Circuit Ruling Protects the Banks — The Consumer Finance Podcast
Solicitors General Insights: The Tale of Two Washingtons — Regulatory Oversight Podcast
How confidential is a request to access or challenge information in INTERPOL’s files?
Understanding the Impact of IPR Estoppel and PTAB Discretionary Denials — Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
The Presumption of Innocence Podcast: Episode 64 - Cages We Built: The Making of Mass Incarceration in America
Solicitors General Insights: The Legal Frontlines in Iowa and Indiana — Regulatory Oversight Podcast
(Podcast) The Briefing: The Ninth Circuit Puts the Brakes on Eleanor’s Copyright Claim
The Briefing: The Ninth Circuit Puts the Brakes on Eleanor’s Copyright Claim
(Podcast) The Briefing: No CTRL-ALT-DEL For the Server Test
The Briefing: No CTRL-ALT-DEL For the Server Test
Navigating PTAB’s New Approach to IPR and PGR Discretionary Denial - Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
Solicitors General Insights: A Deep Dive With Mississippi and Tennessee Solicitors General — Regulatory Oversight Podcast
Update on the State of Non-compete Restrictions (LaborSpeak)
UPIC Audits
Consumer Finance Monitor Podcast Episode: Prominent Journalist, David Dayen, Describes his Reporting on the Efforts of Trump 2.0 to Curb CFPB
#WorkforceWednesday®: Federal Contractors Alert - DEI Restrictions Reinstated by Appeals Court - Employment Law This Week®
5 Key Takeaways | Building a Winning Evidentiary Record at the PTAB (and Surviving Appeal)
Exploring Procedural Justice | Judge Steve Leben | Texas Appellate Law Podcast
In In re Est. of Prieto, the contestant’s mother executed a will in 2008 leaving her property to a trust. No. 04-22-00038-CV, 2024 Tex. App. LEXIS 6336 (Tex. App.—San Antonio August 28, 2024, no pet.)....more
In B&P Littleford, LLC v. Prescott Mach., LLC, No. 20-1449, 2021 WL 3732313 (6th Cir. Aug. 24, 2021) (unpublished), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit recently provided guidance as to factors courts should...more
Since its adoption the Employee Retirement Income Securities Act of 1974, as amended (“ERISA”), has required employee benefit plan sponsors to make disclosures regarding plan terms and plan expenses. The most well-known of...more
A recently issued opinion by the Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District tells a cautionary tale regarding a lender’s failure to name a junior lienholder in its initial judicial foreclosure action. In Cathleen Robin v....more
Brillman v. New England Guaranty Ins. Co., 2020 VT 16 (Feb. 21, 2020) - In this insurance coverage decision, the Vermont Supreme Court determined that the “date of loss,” which starts the clock running on the one-year...more
McNellis-Wallace v. Hoffman, et. al., Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, Docket No. A-1488-19T1 - Brief Summary - A New Jersey appellate court held that a defendant in a malpractice case could not maintain a...more
This case concerns a company (“U.S. Home”) entering into a contract to purchase land from a limited liability company (“Purchase Agreement”) solely owned by two brothers (“Sellers”). On the same day of the purchase, U.S. Home...more
Flashback: Five years ago, Money and Dirt covered the Salazar v. Thomas opinion from California’s Fifth District Court of Appeal holding that a Notice of Default does not “disturb possession” sufficiently to start the...more
On February 26, 2020, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Intel Corp. Inv. Policy Comm. v. Sulyma, __. U.S. __, 140 S. Ct. 768 (2020). The Court unanimously held that Christopher Sulyma ("Sulyma") did not necessarily...more
The Bullet Point: An Ohio Commercial Law Bulletin May 20, 2020 In this appeal, the Eleventh Appellate District affirmed the trial court’s decision finding that the defendants did not waive the defense of lack of personal...more
As discussed in an earlier post on this blog, in Intel Corporation Investment Policy Committee et al. v. Sulyma, No. 18-1116 (Feb. 26, 2020), the U.S. Supreme Court addressed the statute of limitations for breach of fiduciary...more
In its February 26, 2020, unanimous decision in Intel Corporation Investment Policy Committee v. Sulyma, the United States Supreme Court resolved a circuit split regarding what constitutes “actual knowledge” for purposes of...more
Last Wednesday, a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court concluded that receipt of participant disclosures and notices does not constitute “actual knowledge” of fees, investment options, and other plan features. Actual knowledge is the...more
The US Supreme Court recently decided a closely watched ERISA case against employers and fiduciaries. Under Section 413 of ERISA, the statute of limitations for a fiduciary breach claim is shortened from six years to three...more
The Supreme Court in Intel Corporation Investment Policy Committee et al. v. Sulyma, case No. 18–1116, significantly narrowed the circumstances in which a three-year statute of limitations would apply to a claim for breach of...more
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on February 26, 2020 that ERISA plaintiffs do not gain “actual knowledge” of fiduciary misconduct merely by receiving financial disclosures from the plan. The unanimous opinion in Intel Corp....more
Seyfarth Synopsis: On February 26, 2020, the Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the Ninth Circuit’s ruling in Intel Corp. Investment Policy Committee, et al. v. Sulyma. 589 U.S. ___ (2020), holding that plan participants must...more
On February 26, 2020, the United States Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision by Justice Samuel Alito, held that for purposes of assessing the appropriate statute of limitations for a breach of fiduciary duty claim under the...more
Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Intel Corp. Investment Policy Committee et al. v. Sulyma (case number 18-1116). The decision requires a participant to have “actual knowledge” in order to apply ERISA’s...more
Employers and plan fiduciaries should take careful note of a recent ruling issued by the United States Supreme Court which may prompt increased Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA") litigation and otherwise alter...more
In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court just declined to limit the timeframe in which disgruntled employees could bring suit challenging the investment decisions made by plan fiduciaries. While the Employee Retirement...more
In a closely watched decision, Intel Corporation Investment Policy Committee v. Sulyma, Slip Op. No. 18-1116 (U.S. S. Ct., Feb. 26, 2020), construing ERISA’s three-year statute of limitations, see ERISA § 413(2), 29 U.S.C. §...more
On February 26, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Intel Corporation Investment Policy Committee v. Sulyma, holding that, for purposes of ERISA’s three-year statute of limitations, a plan beneficiary does not have “actual...more
In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court has found that disclosing information regarding benefit plans to participants does not necessarily shorten the statute of limitations for filing a fiduciary breach claim under ERISA....more