The US Bankruptcy Courts for the District of Delaware and the Southern District of New York recently issued decisions that (1) highlight the difference between relief available under chapter 11 and chapter 15 and (2) provide guidance to distressed companies considering reliance on nonconsensual t
Le Tribunal administratif de Strasbourg rejette l’opposabilité de la doctrine administrative autorisant l’application du régime mère-fille aux intérêts financiers considérés comme excédentaires à la suite d’un contrôle (TA Strasbourg, 31 mars 2025, n° 2306610)....
On April 23, 2025, President Donald Trump signed an executive order entitled “White House Initiative to Promote Excellence and Innovation at Historically Black Colleges and Universities.” The purpose of the order is to make sure Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) “remain integra
Lonsurf® (tipiracil) - Case Name: Taiho Pharma Co. v. MSN Labs Private Ltd., No. 19-2342-JLH (D. Del. Jan. 23, 2025) (Hall, J.) Drug Product and Patent(s)-in-Suit: Lonsurf® (tipiracil); U.S. Patent No. 10,457,666 (“the ’666 patent”)....
Congress and President Trump have provided legislative relief to decentralized crypto exchanges (and DeFi protocols) from the tax reporting obligations applicable more generally to crypto ‘brokers.’ On April 10, President Trump signed Public Law 119‑5, overturning the Internal Revenue Service’s (
On March 25, 2025, President Donald Trump signed a landmark executive order that will fundamentally change how the United States Treasury Department handles payments.
Under the new administration, the Customs and Border Protection Agency (CBP) is enforcing immigration laws more strictly, thus making the entry landscape into the United States challenging and burdensome for foreign travelers....
On April 21, 2025, the California Court of Appeal issued an opinion validating written, prospective meal period waivers for non-exempt employees. The decision in La Kimba Bradsbery v.
Jordan v. Lynde, 330 A.3d 817 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2024) - The Pennsylvania Superior Court ruled that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to grant the appellants the 30-day response period required under Pa. R.Civ.P.
