SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. No. 132, Original
|
|
- Alberta Ethel Underwood
- 8 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No., Original State of Alabama, State of Florida, State of Tennessee, Commonwealth of Virginia, and Southeast Interstate Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management Commission, v. Plaintiffs, State of North Carolina, Defendant. Thursday, January 0, 0 The George Washington University Law School 00 H Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 0 TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment and Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment BRADFORD R. CLARK, SPECIAL MASTER, PRESIDING
2 APPEARANCES: Special Master: BRADFORD R. CLARK Visiting Professor of Law Harvard Law School Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 0 () - For the Plaintiffs: Sidley Austin LLP By: KRISTIN GRAHAM KOEHLER 0 K Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 00 () -000 For the Defendant: O'Melveny & Myers LLP By: JONATHAN D. HACKER Eye Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 00 () -00 JOHN MADDREY North Carolina Department of Justice West Edenton Street Raleigh, North Carolina 0 () -00 ALSO PRESENT: JONATHAN BOND - - -
3 C O N T E N T S Page Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment Argument by Ms. Koehler, Counsel for the Plaintiffs... Argument by Mr. Hacker, Counsel for the Defendant... Rebuttal by Ms. Koehler, Counsel for the Plaintiffs... Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment Argument by Mr. Hacker, Counsel for the Defendant... Argument by Ms. Koehler, Counsel for the Plaintiffs... Rebuttal by Mr. Hacker, Counsel for the Defendant
4 0 P R O C E E D I N G S SPECIAL MASTER CLARK: So, before we begin, I am recording this, and we may or may not make a transcript, depending on whether I or you feel it is necessary. In addition, I think after the hearing, depending on how it goes, I may want to have just a brief discussion with the counsel on where we go from here, what you expect to do in the intervening time. So we will come back to that. So why don't we start with the Plaintiffs, minutes. Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment Argument by Counsel for the Plaintiffs MS. KOEHLER: Good morning, Special Master Clark. Kristin Koehler of Sidley Austin on behalf of the Plaintiffs in this matter. Plaintiffs move for summary judgment on Count of the complaint, breach of compact. There are two separate and distinct reasons here as -- excuse me -- two separate and distinct ways in which North Carolina breached the compact, either one of which would entitle Plaintiffs to a remedy in this case and would conclude this matter.
5 0 First, North Carolina breached the compact when it failed to take appropriate steps to license a facility up to the point in time that it withdrew from the compact, and second, North Carolina breached the compact when it withdrew in bad faith. Again, either one of these constitutes a breach under the compact and would entitle Plaintiffs to a remedy in this action. SPECIAL MASTER CLARK: Now, so is your motion limited to breach of compact or contract? MS. KOEHLER: It is, Your Honor. SPECIAL MASTER CLARK: You are not seeking -- well, so all right. How do you see repudiation fitting into this scheme? MS. KOEHLER: Certainly. Our argument is that North Carolina breached the compact in the two ways that I have suggested, and that would entitle Plaintiffs to a remedy. Here, we have elected repudiation as that remedy. There could be other remedies here. There could be damages. SPECIAL MASTER CLARK: You mean restitution? MS. KOEHLER: Excuse me. Yes. SPECIAL MASTER CLARK: I am actually asking about the repudiation that you have alleged.
6 MS. KOEHLER: Okay. How do we see that fitting in? 0 SPECIAL MASTER CLARK: Yeah. Does that constitute breach in your opinion? MS. KOEHLER: Well, it is our position that when North Carolina ceased performance, that constituted a complete repudiation of the compact. Separate and independently, we also maintain that it constituted a total and material breach of the compact. SPECIAL MASTER CLARK: Well, okay. As I understand it, a repudiation can occur even in anticipation of breach. In other words, a party can say I do not intend to perform my obligations under a contract, and that could qualify as a repudiation, which counts. Is that an argument you are making, or am I just making this up? MS. KOEHLER: Well, it is certainly our position that when North Carolina ceased performance -- and it is undisputed that in December of, they ceased performance -- that that was a repudiation of the agreement. SPECIAL MASTER CLARK: Okay. So either way. MS. KOEHLER: Yep. A repudiation of their
7 0 obligations under the agreement. Now, there is no dispute with respect to the first way in which North Carolina breached the compact. There is no dispute here that North Carolina had an obligation under the compact, at a minimum, to take appropriate steps to ensure that an application for a license to construct and operate a facility was filed with and issued by the appropriate authority. SPECIAL MASTER CLARK: Is that the minimum or maximum as well? MS. KOEHLER: Obligation? SPECIAL MASTER CLARK: Yeah. MS. KOEHLER: Well, our position is that North Carolina did have an obligation to build the facility, but for the purposes of this motion -- SPECIAL MASTER CLARK: Under the compact or -- MS. KOEHLER: Yes. But for the purposes of this motion, we don't have to get there -- SPECIAL MASTER CLARK: Okay. MS. KOEHLER: -- because the parties disagree about that, but for purposes of summary judgment, you don't have to resolve that issue.
8 0 SPECIAL MASTER CLARK: Your claim is based on Article (c) of the compact? MS. KOEHLER: That at a minimum -- SPECIAL MASTER CLARK: Yeah. MS. KOEHLER: -- they had to take appropriate steps. They acknowledge that. So the parties are in complete agreement here. We are also in complete agreement that that obligation existed from the moment they became the host State up until the moment that they withdrew from the compact. Indeed, you see nowhere in their papers that they suggest that they did not have that, that duty to take appropriate steps. SPECIAL MASTER CLARK: If they had withdrawn upon being named a host State, would they have violated, would they have breached the compact? MS. KOEHLER: Our position, Professor Clark, is that although they had a right to withdraw under the compact, they had to withdraw in good faith, and so if, as you pose it, on the day they were designated as the host State and they then decided to withdraw, would that -- the question would become does that constitute, constitute bad
9 faith. 0 SPECIAL MASTER CLARK: Yeah. MS. KOEHLER: And that would be the issue to be determined. It is certainly different than our scenario here because they didn't decide -- SPECIAL MASTER CLARK: Uh-huh. MS. KOEHLER: -- to withdraw on the first date. SPECIAL MASTER CLARK: And your suggestion in the papers is that by receiving and accepting money from the Commission, it became bad faith to withdraw? MS. KOEHLER: Well, certainly, our position is that while they argue they had a right to withdraw -- that is their position, they had a right to withdraw -- our position is that they had to do it in good faith, and so here where you have a scenario where they don't only spend just their money, but they take $0 million of the other States' money -- the States had no obligation to do that -- they stopped performing, and then on the eve of a sanctions hearing when they are going to be held accountable for their actions, they completely withdraw. And this, I might add, is over an -year period. So it is not as if they were designated the host State; a day later, they said, "Oh, no,
10 0 0 we can't do this." It is a very different scenario. SPECIAL MASTER CLARK: Can I just step back? Let's just step back for a minute. Who initiated the idea of payments by the Commission? Is that in dispute? MS. KOEHLER: I don't believe that it is in dispute. North Carolina requested funding from the Commission, and the Commission had a means through the party States, and the Commission had a means to collect fees and surcharges and agreed to fund North Carolina. SPECIAL MASTER CLARK: All right. Now, at the point that the Commission agreed to fund North Carolina, did it seek or receive any additional assurances from North Carolina as to how it would proceed at that point? MS. KOEHLER: At the time the party States made the determination to begin funding North Carolina, they did it in reliance on North Carolina's obligations under the compact. Everybody fully expected here that North Carolina -- SPECIAL MASTER CLARK: So it was a way to facilitate North Carolina's ability to perform under the compact? MS. KOEHLER: Exactly, exactly. In order to
11 0 assist, in order to expedite, really in reliance on the compact. SPECIAL MASTER CLARK: So the Commission really just didn't expect any additional performance. It just wanted North Carolina to live up to whatever compact obligations it had. MS. KOEHLER: North Carolina had a preexisting duty under the compact to take appropriate steps towards licensing a facility, and so that money was given with an expectation to assist North Carolina but always done in reliance on the compact. SPECIAL MASTER CLARK: I take it that there were a series of rebuts up until the very end. MS. KOEHLER: Correct. SPECIAL MASTER CLARK: North Carolina would say, "Gee, we need some more money. This is more expensive than we thought. Can we have some more money?" At any point, did the Commission say, "Well, you know, this is getting expensive. We will give you some more money, but you have got to give us some additional assurance that you are actually going to complete this facility or license this facility or something"?
12 0 MS. KOEHLER: That -- SPECIAL MASTER CLARK: Were there any exchanges of that nature? MS. KOEHLER: I mean, certainly, that occurred throughout this whole time period, and you see in the record, North Carolina's repeated promises and repeated commitments, were committed to this process, were going to do this. It is really only at the very end, right around the time that they stopped performance, that they begin to change their tune and say, "Oh, no, it is really your obligation to fund here," which it is not under the compact and certainly under no separate agreement or legally cognizable relationship the Commission, the party States, or North Carolina entered into. SPECIAL MASTER CLARK: Well, so let me just -- let me just ask this. Let's assume -- and I know you disagree with this to some extent, but let's assume that North Carolina had a right to withdraw from the compact before it received any funding from the Commission, either because it just decided, you know, it wasn't worth it, the benefits weren't great enough, whatever, or just, you know, it was
13 0 impossible to do. If that is true, could you characterize the Commission's payments as a way to induce North Carolina not to exercise its otherwise freestanding right to withdraw? In other words, is that a fair characterization? MS. KOEHLER: Well, I think based on the record here, it's not. There was no suggestion from North Carolina at any point in this, whether they were thinking it or not. There was no suggestion to the Commission, "We are going to withdraw unless you provide us with -- with additional money." So I don't think that that -- that occurred. SPECIAL MASTER CLARK: Didn't they consider withdrawing initially? MS. KOEHLER: Well, certainly at the outset -- SPECIAL MASTER CLARK: Yeah. MS. KOEHLER: -- at the very, very beginning, but I think those are -- SPECIAL MASTER CLARK: How soon -- what was the relationship between that decision and the funding? Was there any -- MS. KOEHLER: Those are disconnected. SPECIAL MASTER CLARK: Disconnected.
14 0 MS. KOEHLER: They considered it at the outset, but they decided not to do that. Funding occurs later in the process, and the North Carolina authority initially appropriated money for the facility after it made the decision not to withdraw. So those two facts are disconnect. SPECIAL MASTER CLARK: Okay. MS. KOEHLER: So, again, Professor Clark, it is our position that when they stopped in ', that is a complete cessation of performance. It is a breach. It is a repudiation, and it entitles us to a remedy. And indeed, as we discussed in our papers briefly, the Commission has already made that determination that -- that North Carolina has breached the compact. SPECIAL MASTER CLARK: I have to tell you just I don't find that argument very persuasive, but you are certainly entitled to make it, and the Supreme Court, you know, eventually may agree with you. But I think where the compact is not explicit with respect to referring any and all disputes to the Commission for its exclusive determination, I don't think we could really read that into the compact.
15 0 MS. KOEHLER: Well, certainly, our compact language is different, but it does provide that the Commission is the judge, and based on the text of the compact, that is pretty strong language. SPECIAL MASTER CLARK: I think in the preliminary report, I concluded in essence, although I am certainly willing to be persuaded to the contrary, that the Commission's authority in that regard was with respect to imposing sanctions on members up to and including, you know, the amount of the compact, but, you know, I don't think it was intended to provide this type of post-conflict remedy for members who withdraw. MS. KOEHLER: Right. Well, certainly, the Commission has made a breach determination, but separate and apart from that, we think just based on the facts, on the record that you have before you, that it is clear that North Carolina breached the compact by ceasing performance. We don't think its absolute or its arguably absolute right to withdraw changes that analysis. SPECIAL MASTER CLARK: So let me ask you. So, if North Carolina had not ceased to perform in or repudiated at that point and had continued to seek the
16 0 license and then withdrew, would we be here? Would you be here? MS. KOEHLER: Well, certainly, the withdraw in bad faith in our view is based on -- SPECIAL MASTER CLARK: Is that based on the fact that they didn't even attempt to play the process out to its conclusion? What if they had applied for a license and it was denied, and then they said, "Well, we gave it our best shot. We withdraw"? MS. KOEHLER: I mean, certainly, they -- they had -- under the compact, their obligation is that they have to continue to take appropriate steps, and they stopped doing this. SPECIAL MASTER CLARK: Forever? MS. KOEHLER: Well, I mean, certainly, the compact says that you have to continue to take appropriate steps, and your point as to forever, there is a right to withdraw in the compact, but our position is they have to continue -- SPECIAL MASTER CLARK: What if they applied for a license five times and it is just constantly denied, and they say, "Well, we have done all we can"? MS. KOEHLER: Well, under the compact --
17 0 SPECIAL MASTER CLARK: Is that bad faith at that point, or is that a violation? MS. KOEHLER: Well, they are still trying. They are still trying to take appropriate steps to get a license, but under the compact, which they remained a member of until ', they are required to keep taking appropriate steps. If at that point they then withdraw, that's a different issue, but the issue is while they are still a member of the compact -- SPECIAL MASTER CLARK: Right. I understand that. MS. KOEHLER: -- they have to continue to do that, and then once they decide to withdraw -- SPECIAL MASTER CLARK: And honestly, that seems to me to be your strongest claim, that they did not withdraw, they -- MS. KOEHLER: That's exactly right. I mean, if they withdrew on December th, perhaps, you know, there would be a different view here, but that is not what happened. And under United Roasters, I think it is perfectly clear that a party under a contract, even if it contains a termination clause, you have to continue to perform up until
18 0 you exercise your rights under that termination clause. That is up to the final hour. So you have to keep performing under the contract, and they simply didn't do this here. We also don't think that North Carolina's duty of performance was somehow relieved because we stopped providing funding. There is just no basis in the record that our stopping of funding relieves them of their duty. It is really -- it is actually quite remarkable that they make that argument, that they made it -- SPECIAL MASTER CLARK: Well, what is interesting to me is that you both rely on the funding to some extent. I mean, you rely on the presence of the funding to demonstrate bad faith. Right? In the face of this repeated and substantial funding, they weren't free to withdraw or just stop performing, and they say, you know, "Well, we got this funding, we came to rely on it, and we came to expect it, and we couldn't continue without it." So it seems to me that the funding is obviously a central issue. MS. KOEHLER: Right. SPECIAL MASTER CLARK: How it fits is the question.
19 0 MS. KOEHLER: Because North Carolina, although in their brief they do suggest that they came to rely on this, there was no suggestion that that changed the relationship between the parties. They don't contend that there was any type of legal agreement between the parties as a result of this funding or that there is some new cognizably -- SPECIAL MASTER CLARK: So the Commission did not expect any additional benefit from the funding? MS. KOEHLER: When the Commission provided this funding to move this process along, all these party States were committed to doing this and believed, in reliance on the compact, that North Carolina -- SPECIAL MASTER CLARK: So it was a voluntary payment? MS. KOEHLER: The Commission was not required to fund under the compact. It was not required to do so, and there was no, you know, subsequent relationship requiring it to do so. SPECIAL MASTER CLARK: And they expected nothing in return for the funding? MS. KOEHLER: I mean, it expected -- SPECIAL MASTER CLARK: Other than performance --
20 0 MS. KOEHLER: Exactly. SPECIAL MASTER CLARK: -- under the compact. MS. KOEHLER: It expected that North Carolina would adhere to its obligations under the compact. Now, as a result of this breach by nonperformance, without any justification, Plaintiffs' position is that they are entitled to a remedy here, and we have elected, as I started to say at the outset, restitution of the $0-million benefit, the party States through the Commission -- SPECIAL MASTER CLARK: Before we get to restitution, if you were to seek expectation damages, what would they be? MS. KOEHLER: Well, certainly, that's something that we would have to prove up. There is a variety of ways that we could go here. SPECIAL MASTER CLARK: Because it seems to me that the expectation damages would almost certainly be less than restitution damages. MS. KOEHLER: They could. They could actually be more in this, this scenario. We have not, certainly, at this stage in the proceedings, undertaken that analysis. We could go either reliance damages, expect damages. We can
21 0 pursue damage. SPECIAL MASTER CLARK: Are you entitled to seek whichever you prefer, or is there some limit on which you can seek in those circumstances? MS. KOEHLER: Well, you know, it's clear under the law that parties can elect remedies. We elected the restitution remedy here. As you recognized at the last argument, in terms of fashioning a remedy, it may be logical to look at the money that the Commission and the party States conferred on North Carolina, and we think that that is logical too, and that is why we have elected to go this route. Certainly, we can have a trial, and we can prove up other damages if we have to go that route, but we have elected restitution. SPECIAL MASTER CLARK: And are there any factual disputes with respect to the restitution, the amount of restitution? MS. KOEHLER: Well, it is undisputed how much money was provided. SPECIAL MASTER CLARK: Was provided. Right. MS. KOEHLER: And it's undisputed, the process
22 0 through which it was provided. SPECIAL MASTER CLARK: The dispute is over how you characterize it? MS. KOEHLER: Who was the money -- you know, who -- SPECIAL MASTER CLARK: Was it a bad debt and so forth. MS. KOEHLER: Exactly. Exactly. And those really are legal questions which you can resolve right now. There's really -- on our motion on the breach of compact claim, there are no outstanding factual issues. SPECIAL MASTER CLARK: So let me ask about that for a moment. So both sides filed statements of undisputed facts, and both of you filed responses to the other. Do you think there are sufficient undisputed facts at this stage to rule in favor of your motion? MS. KOEHLER: I do, Professor Clark. If you look at our statement, by and large, we do not dispute. There are very few disputes here, and you will see the same if you look at North Carolina's. Their biggest dispute is perhaps that I called Governor Hunt "Governor Hunt" instead of "former Governor Hunt." So there are not material issues of
23 0 fact that are in dispute. If you really -- yes, we both had submissions, but if you really look at those submissions -- SPECIAL MASTER CLARK: So the facts surrounding the cessation of performance and repudiation, if that is what occurred, are not in dispute in? MS. KOEHLER: We do not believe they are. The record is perfectly clear that they stopped performance on December th,. SPECIAL MASTER CLARK: Now, they have asserted some defenses such as frustration of purpose or impracticability. Are facts in dispute regarding those defenses? MS. KOEHLER: I don't believe that they are. If you look at their defenses, which they say that the two -- let me start with the first two. The reason that the Commission -- the reason why they are entitled to a defense of impracticability is because the Commission stopped funding. In order to be entitled to that defense, it has to involve an event, the underlying assumption upon which -- SPECIAL MASTER CLARK: Well, that is not the only ground they assert, is it? MS. KOEHLER: No. That's the first one.
24 0 SPECIAL MASTER CLARK: Yeah. MS. KOEHLER: And certainly, there is no requirement under the compact. The second one is that South Carolina withdrew from the compact and, therefore, eliminated this alleged monopoly. Again, fundamental premise of the compact that there was a right to withdraw in the compact, so nothing has changed there. They also say increased costs or change in the marketplace, but the law in that is clear that that is not enough. Increased costs are not enough to entitle them to that defense. So, no, they are not entitled to any kind of frustration of purpose, impracticability defense there. SPECIAL MASTER CLARK: Okay. Well, all right. So I think your minutes are up. MS. KOEHLER: All right. Thank you. Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment Argument by Counsel for the Defendant MR. HACKER: Good morning, Professor Clark. Jonathan Hacker of O'Melveny & Myers for Defendant North Carolina, and with me is John Maddrey from the Office of the
25 0 Attorney General. I think I should start this morning where we left off last time, at the end of the last proceeding with your report, and some of the questions this morning and answers I think help clarify what was I think the one remaining issue, at least the most important remaining issue, and that was whether or not there was a separate supplemental agreement either in addition to the compact or that it somehow impliedly altered a part of the contract, and I think the answer to that now is no. I was certainly prepared to argue that, that there is just zero evidence of that in the process of discovery, the entire point of which was to establish the existence of a supplemental agreement between the Commission and North Carolina, and you heard counsel this morning concede that there was no such agreement, no expectation of anything additional, no consideration. It just doesn't exist. So that issue I think is completely out of the case, and it was out of the case even before this morning because the other side's briefs don't even purport to establish it. What they argue, again, you heard this morning, were three bases for summary judgment on the grounds on
26 0 Count of the compact, the first that the compact was breached because the Commission said it was breached, and I think we have been through that one. Unless you have any questions about it, I don't think it's worth spending time on this morning. The second argument, the second two arguments, the second argument is that the withdrawal itself was a bad exercise, although a contract, rather, was a bad-faith exercise of that right, and the third argument is that, leaving the withdrawal aside, the months prior to withdrawal, the suspension of performance was the breach. I will briefly address the withdrawal point, which I don't think has any legal merit under the terms of the compact. Indeed, one of their own cases flatly rejects -- flatly rejects the proposition that when you have an unconditional contractual right to terminate or withdraw from the contract, that that is conditioned upon even the duty of good faith. That is the Atlantic City case that they emphasized repeatedly in their briefs. SPECIAL MASTER CLARK: Is there any -- and this may not be right at this point, but when the Commission was providing North Carolina with the funding to seek the license, North Carolina over time made a series of
27 0 statements to the Commission, almost promises, if you will, or at least representations that, "We fully intend to, you know, seek a license. We fully intend to site and operate a facility," whatever. I mean, there were a number of these statements, right, over time? Do those affect the analysis of good faith in this context, those representations? MR. HACKER: Well, I suppose they affect it, but we have to be very clear about what the statements were. There were statements, and I don't think anybody disputes the accuracy of them. They were statements they remained committed to the process, and there is no evidence that they didn't. North Carolina kept spending money, and it was all spent, and there is no evidence, again, with months of discovery that the money was spent on, you know, flower bushes for the Governor. They were all spent on this process. SPECIAL MASTER CLARK: Wasn't there also a statement that they were committed to operating a facility? Honestly, I don't remember. MR. HACKER: No. The statements were -- even that
28 0 statement, I'm not sure. I don't have the, you know, catalog of the precise word, but they are all committed to -- even the statement "we're committed to doing this" was a true, accurate statement, supported by the record. There is no evidence of pretext here. There is no point at which they say "we are committed" and then behind the scenes we are sending money somewhere else. SPECIAL MASTER CLARK: Well, one of the -- MR. HACKER: We are spending the money on the process because they were committed to -- SPECIAL MASTER CLARK: Yeah. MR. HACKER: -- getting it done. SPECIAL MASTER CLARK: One of the -- often one of the requirements for bad faith or lack of good faith in the performance of a contract is dishonesty. Was North Carolina dishonest? Is there a dispute over there? MR. HACKER: There is no evidence. I mean, I suppose a party can assert anything the party wants to assert, but there is no evidence that at any point North Carolina was dishonest, and there is not, I don't think, an argument in the briefs. The closest one might come -- and what counsel
29 0 might suggest in reply -- is there was a period at the beginning of when the Commission -- the North Carolina's Representative Miller sent a memo to the Governor saying, "This isn't going to work, Governor." SPECIAL MASTER CLARK: Right. MR. HACKER: The process -- SPECIAL MASTER CLARK: They're not disclosing that today. MR. HACKER: Right. SPECIAL MASTER CLARK: At that point. MR. HACKER: And leave that to -- yeah. It didn't sent it to -- and because it was an internal matter with North Carolina to decide what North Carolina should do, given Miller's understanding of the circumstances. There's nothing in the memo that says "we ought to fake it, Governor." SPECIAL MASTER CLARK: Were there statements at that time by North Carolina? You know, there were those private statements or discussions going on behind the scenes. Were there statements at that time publicly or to the Commission saying "we remain committed" during that same period?
30 0 0 MR. HACKER: Absolutely. After that memo went to the Governor, the Governor -- the record shows. I mean, there's a paper record -- SPECIAL MASTER CLARK: Yeah. MR. HACKER: -- that just marches right through. You can read it week after week. The Governor's decision was to reject that advice, and it wasn't actually a concrete, solid recommendation, but what Miller was saying is you ought to consider this because it doesn't look like -- SPECIAL MASTER CLARK: Right. So this is just an internal -- MR. HACKER: This is the epitome of good faith. Miller is saying -- SPECIAL MASTER CLARK: An internal deliberation. MR. HACKER: Internal deliberation saying it doesn't look like this is going to work, it is going to be very hard to license this site. The Governor gets the memo, and rather than decide, yes, we are terminating our relationship, the Governor effectively says -- now, the subjective workings of his mind aren't in the record, but the reality of it is the Governor says, "No. We remain
31 0 committed to this," and you certainly understand why. The State has already spent tens of millions of its dollars, of its own taxpayers' money to accomplish this, and, you know, why -- so long as there is a realistic possibility in the Governor's mind, why let it go, and there's, you know, the prospect of a benefit of the establishment of the facility. SPECIAL MASTER CLARK: So, when the Governor decided to pull the plug on this project, how long -- what was the timing of that? When did he decide, and when did he inform the Commission, and did North Carolina receive any money or any additional funding during that interim period? MR. HACKER: Well, this period that we are talking about right now is early, and there is more money that comes in because the parties, per the Governor's decision to remain committed and try to work it out, they worked it out, and they got an additional -- is it $ million, I think in this period? So, you know -- SPECIAL MASTER CLARK: So, in other words, during discovery, did you -- did the parties figure out when the decision was made by North Carolina to stop performing, and when -- and what was that date --
32 0 MR. HACKER: Right. SPECIAL MASTER CLARK: -- and what was the relationship of that date to the time that North Carolina informed the Commission? MR. HACKER: There is a crucially important premise to your question that has to be clarified from the record, and that is the, quote/unquote, "stop performing." Right? Because the argument prior to withdrawal is that North Carolina stopped performing its obligations under the contract. It would be that date -- SPECIAL MASTER CLARK: Well, we can put that aside for a moment, but North Carolina informed the Commission, "We do not intend to take any further steps. We are going to wind down. We are instructing them to take an orderly shutdown." MR. HACKER: I understand, but that is precisely what I was getting at. That was -- that statement was made in December of. SPECIAL MASTER CLARK: Right. MR. HACKER: That was not, however, the date in which North Carolina informed anybody that it was not going to perform its obligations under the compact. That date was
33 0 July of - -- of when North Carolina withdrew from -- SPECIAL MASTER CLARK: Well, all right. Let's put that aside for a minute on the nonperformance. Just in terms of -- you don't think that the statement that "we're going to direct an orderly shutdown" is a repudiation? MR. HACKER: No. And let me explain why, if I could. The contract, as you heard this morning, we absolutely do agree with this. The compact obliges the host State. The sole duty under the compact is to take appropriate steps to license and site a facility. So the question is not do you always have to be doing something at every moment. The question is are you taking appropriate steps. From the very outset of -- SPECIAL MASTER CLARK: How is it appropriate to shut down the steps? MR. HACKER: Because that's -- the questions you were answering -- you asked this morning I think answered the question. For example, if it had been unable to license a site and it was conclusively determined there was no place
34 0 in North Carolina to license a site, it is hard to argue that it would be appropriate to keep spending money. SPECIAL MASTER CLARK: Well, was the decision to stop or to shut down the process based on a determination that there was no proper site, or was it based -- because there is evidence, isn't there, in the record that "if we don't get the money, we're going to stop"? MR. HACKER: But you have to go back to what -- SPECIAL MASTER CLARK: Wasn't it all about the money? MR. HACKER: It was very much about the money, but that's so important. That's what I want to get to. The resolution, February of, the first -- right after North Carolina is designated a host State and the relationship begins, all right, in the record, in paper, and the resolution enacted by a majority, presumably all of the Commission members, the Commission says we believe in the resolution it is, quote, "appropriate and necessary to provide financial assistance to the host State to help facilitate the process." That is at Appendix -- Plaintiffs' Appendix on page. It is a Commission resolution. That is the commitment of all --
35 0 SPECIAL MASTER CLARK: Give me that page again. MR. HACKER: Appendix page. SPECIAL MASTER CLARK: Okay. MR. HACKER: From the very outset of the relationship, the Commission -- this is the Commission speaking -- says, "It is appropriate and necessary to provide financial assistance." So the question throughout the relationship is what is -- what are appropriate steps, and from the very beginning of the relationship, the Commission and North Carolina agreed that it would not be the sole burden of the State to fund the -- in practice, it would not be expected that appropriate steps required a State to fund licensing -- SPECIAL MASTER CLARK: So you're saying -- MR. HACKER: -- solely out of -- SPECIAL MASTER CLARK: -- interpret the -- MR. HACKER: -- the taxpayers' funds. SPECIAL MASTER CLARK: -- host State's obligation under Article to take appropriate steps in light of the course of dealing with the parties. MR. HACKER: Exactly. Starting with that first statement and proceeding all the way throughout.
36 0 Nobody contended at any point that it was not appropriate for North Carolina or necessary -- again, this is the Commission's words -- "necessary" to facilitate this performance. The argument was -- and we don't disagree with it, Professor Clark -- that the Commission didn't have a duty, a contractual duty to do that, and that's correct, the point being that if they -- SPECIAL MASTER CLARK: Although didn't you think that at the time in? MR. HACKER: There was one letter from the Governor asserting in the process of, you know, fighting over this -- SPECIAL MASTER CLARK: Yeah. MR. HACKER: -- you know, that "we think it is your contractual obligation," but it is not the legal position we are submitting here today. SPECIAL MASTER CLARK: Right. I understand that. MR. HACKER: And it's obviously correct because the point is we couldn't sue them for breach. That is the sense in which they didn't have a duty. SPECIAL MASTER CLARK: Right.
37 0 MR. HACKER: But that is, more or less, irrelevant to the question as to whether or not there was an understanding between the parties as to what would constitute appropriate steps. If it was simply too expensive to lay it at the feet of the taxpayers, then it would not be an appropriate step for North Carolina to keep spending money on it. Imagine the cost of borrowing, the contractors, there is, you know, a war, something happened that made it impracticable. SPECIAL MASTER CLARK: So cost is relevant to appropriate steps. MR. HACKER: Absolutely. SPECIAL MASTER CLARK: If it became a trillion dollars, it wouldn't be appropriate? MR. HACKER: That is absolutely right, and that was acknowledged, as I say, by the Commission from the very beginning of the process. So what happens then in is South Carolina withdraws, which creates two problems; one, a problem for the Commission which is its source of money that it had been providing North Carolina dries up. SPECIAL MASTER CLARK: By the way, so North
38 0 Carolina facility is still operating? MR. HACKER: South Carolina facility. SPECIAL MASTER CLARK: South Carolina. That's what I meant. Yeah. MR. HACKER: Yes, yes, yes. That's correct. SPECIAL MASTER CLARK: Okay. Got it. MR. HACKER: So that created a problem for the Commission where it didn't have the money to provide -- that it heretofore regarded as appropriate and necessary, and it created a problem for North Carolina because it was -- you know, it had this expectation of basically a monopoly in the region, down the road when a facility did get licensed -- SPECIAL MASTER CLARK: Well, let me ask about that since you -- MR. HACKER: -- and established, and that was gone. SPECIAL MASTER CLARK: -- mention it, which is -- because that goes to your defense, in some sense. You know, you say North -- South Carolina withdrew, and that changed -- and would be a competitor, and that changed the expectations of the parties, but it seems to me that North Carolina understood that parties could withdraw. In fact,
39 0 you sought an amendment and obtained an amendment providing that parties could withdraw after your facility became operable. So doesn't that undercut your position that there was an unexpected change in the composition of the States? MR. HACKER: I have two answers. First of all, as to what constitutes appropriate steps, that is not even a defense. That's just, you know, looking around and looking at the facts and circumstances at the moment, so -- SPECIAL MASTER CLARK: No, right. I'm just saying assuming there is a breach, you have this defense of impracticability -- MR. HACKER: Right. SPECIAL MASTER CLARK: -- and frustration of purpose, and part of that was -- that's what made me think of it is you mentioned South Carolina's withdrawal, and that was one of the questions I wanted to ask you. In other words, is it your position that South Carolina's withdrawal in essence established a factual defense? MR. HACKER: Yeah. I think -- I think that is. SPECIAL MASTER CLARK: A factual defense --
40 0 0 MR. HACKER: That is our position because a contract can't preclude all possibilities that are out there. The whole problem as a frustration of purpose arises when -- SPECIAL MASTER CLARK: Doesn't it have to be an unanticipated change in circumstances? Wasn't this an anticipated change that the parties were free to withdraw? In fact, that is one of your strongest arguments, right, that you were free to withdraw? MR. HACKER: Right, but -- SPECIAL MASTER CLARK: So it's hard to argue at the same time that you were completely free to withdraw at any time, but, you know, gee, we couldn't imagine that anybody else would. MR. HACKER: But you have to evaluate the possibility that some might -- somebody might exercise what is a contractual right -- doesn't necessarily mean that you assume the contract is based on the possibility that, you know, they're going to do that, particularly, you know -- that is why we negotiated a change after the initial bargain was struck, you know, to protect against that, you know, down the future.
41 0 SPECIAL MASTER CLARK: Right. But you didn't negotiate as far as you could have. You could have said now that we have been chosen, nobody else can withdraw. MR. HACKER: That's right, but I don't think you're required to negotiate, you know, a textual change in the contract to prevent -- prevent against any possibility that might alter the terms of the bargain, you know, when they arise, and -- SPECIAL MASTER CLARK: Yeah. Okay. Well, we can -- MR. HACKER: I mean, yes, it was a possibility. The question is whether it is a realistic possibility, but I do want to emphasize it is not just a defense. I mean, I think the more important way of looking at it is whether given the fact that South Carolina had change which -- changed, you know, the costs and the benefits of performance at that time and what was deemed appropriate and necessary in terms of Commission funding, you know, was it appropriate for North Carolina to continue to do this without any promise, without any live promise of additional financial assistance. SPECIAL MASTER CLARK: Why didn't North Carolina
42 0 simply withdraw at that point in? MR. HACKER: Because it was the epitome of good faith not to. That's absolutely a crucial point here. We absolutely could have, under the contract, exercised our unambiguous, unfettered right to withdraw, but rather than do that -- and it's absolutely important to understand the record here. Rather than do that, we didn't say we stop, we are just not going to perform, we're done here, don't talk to us anymore. Look at the record. It is exactly the opposite. What we did was preserve the authority -- SPECIAL MASTER CLARK: Was North Carolina holding itself out as open to resume efforts if -- MR. HACKER: Absolutely. Not only holding itself out, we did resume efforts, and there is no contradiction in the record about that. We kept all the core samples. All the work that had been done were carefully preserved. The site was preserved. The authority was maintained and running. The records -- SPECIAL MASTER CLARK: Did you ever apply for a license? MR. HACKER: We never applied for it because we didn't -- that -- what we stopped was the continuing effort
43 0 to try to get a license because we didn't think -- SPECIAL MASTER CLARK: Well, isn't that the essence of the obligation under the compact to take appropriate steps to ensure that an application for a license to construct and operate a facility is bought an issue? MR. HACKER: But as we've just been discussing, the question is appropriate steps, and what North Carolina decided in December -- effectively in December of is absent the promise of additional funding here, it ultimately isn't going to happen. We need to, as we did in, discuss a way to continue the necessary and appropriate assistance. If it's not coming, it ultimately is going to have to be literally a waste of money. It would be like burning cash to just have people spending, doing stuff, that was ultimately going to be to no effect. That was the problem. Why would North Carolina continue to spend all kinds of money on a process that by hypothesis everybody agreed -- SPECIAL MASTER CLARK: What if you got the license?
44 0 MR. HACKER: -- wouldn't actually work? SPECIAL MASTER CLARK: What if you applied for the license and you received it? MR. HACKER: There was millions of dollars and a number of years yet to go. That was the problem. I mean, if the next day, if we're right on the cusp of getting the license and we just sort of said -- SPECIAL MASTER CLARK: How -- okay. MR. HACKER: -- we'd rather not, that would be a different case. SPECIAL MASTER CLARK: If we can get a sense, so what percentage of activity was complete that was necessary to apply for a license -- MR. HACKER: And the answer is -- SPECIAL MASTER CLARK: -- at the time -- MR. HACKER: The answer is we don't know because what we do know or the record shows is the whole -- SPECIAL MASTER CLARK: What remained to be done before you could apply for a license? MR. HACKER: We had to -- we had to finish determining, evaluating the site. It wasn't like we knew that there was, you know, one more year to go, one last
45 0 test. That was the whole problem is both -- all the parties recognized there was a ton of work, very expensive work yet to be done. We don't know how much. I mean, if you can imagine, you know, maybe the site is partly okay and that we have to get some other approval. It was going to be a continuing difficult process. That was I think recognized on all sides, and so it was not a situation where we can say now we were percent of the way there and in a fit of peak with percent left to go, we took our ball and went home. That is just not what the record shows at all. What the record shows is -- it's quite clear. You know, the Commission had been providing necessary and appropriate funding all along. The Commission source ran out. The Commission decided it didn't want to do that anymore, and the Commission understood there's a lot of work to do, but the Commission took the position at that point we don't have a duty and we're not doing it, the duty is entirely yours, you have to do it. There wasn't a question of -- SPECIAL MASTER CLARK: So your position is -- MR. HACKER: -- we both agree that we're very close.
46 0 SPECIAL MASTER CLARK: -- whatever you did or didn't do, it was appropriate? MR. HACKER: Well, I mean, not -- not in the abstract. Given the facts and circumstances in the record at the time, yes. It was appropriate to preserve the site, preserve all the records, keep the -- remember, the authority kept running -- SPECIAL MASTER CLARK: Do you think there are any facts in dispute that prevent ruling on the motion at this time? MR. HACKER: I think as to their claim that it was a breach, there would be facts in dispute because we submit -- at least facts in dispute because we submit given the record -- SPECIAL MASTER CLARK: What are the facts in dispute? MR. HACKER: The -- I would say the ultimate factual inference from their perspective as to whether or not there were -- SPECIAL MASTER CLARK: I mean -- MR. HACKER: -- appropriate steps. SPECIAL MASTER CLARK: -- I determine if further
47 0 discovery required to resolve any facts relevant to these motions -- to this motion. MR. HACKER: I don't think so, but I -- it's possible there may be, you know, more -- more to determine on whether or not there were appropriate steps. Our submission certainly on our motion is that given -- SPECIAL MASTER CLARK: Well, you haven't taken a position on that. MR. HACKER: Well, I was -- I mean, I understand. SPECIAL MASTER CLARK: You need to do that. MR. HACKER: Our -- but our position is given what the record shows about the facts and circumstances, as a matter of law, the Court can draw the inference. The only reasonable inference is that it was appropriate for us to preserve all the evidence -- SPECIAL MASTER CLARK: Sure. No, I understand -- MR. HACKER: -- preserve all the records, and -- SPECIAL MASTER CLARK: -- you think I can rule in your favor -- MR. HACKER: Right. SPECIAL MASTER CLARK: -- the fact that there are
48 0 enough facts to rule for you, but I -- in other words, are there -- I mean, do you dispute any of the facts that they rely on to support their assertion that there was a breach in? MR. HACKER: It would depend on the precise facts they came up and asserted. If they are asserting that it was a pretext and that we were faking it, we would certainly dispute that, but again, it's sort of a -- SPECIAL MASTER CLARK: Well, there's two -- MR. HACKER: It's a semantic point because -- SPECIAL MASTER CLARK: -- different things that -- MR. HACKER: -- we don't think -- SPECIAL MASTER CLARK: Put aside the -- MR. HACKER: There's neither a dispute in the record on that. SPECIAL MASTER CLARK: -- the bad-faith withdrawal argument for a moment. Let's just focus on the events. MR. HACKER: Right. And I'm saying there's a -- SPECIAL MASTER CLARK: And that's one of the bases. Those events -- MR. HACKER: Not -- SPECIAL MASTER CLARK: -- those factual events,
49 0 whatever transpired, are a form of basis for their claim that there was a breach at that time. Do you have any dispute with them over the facts that occurred, or are you both in agreement these are the facts, and you're saying, "Yeah, these are the facts, but we see them differently. We think we took appropriate steps. We think it was reasonable for us not to proceed without further funding," blah, blah, blah, "We don't disagree that we stopped and that we made these statements and that this happened and that happened"? In other words, just -- I'm talking about -- MR. HACKER: I'd say -- SPECIAL MASTER CLARK: -- purely factual, not application of facts or characterization of the facts or inferences, legal inferences from the facts, just the who, what, when, where, what-happened-here facts. MR. HACKER: I'm saying I think that the record -- the relevant record is undisputed, the factual record. All I'm saying is even as to the suspension of the -- not performance, but the suspension of the program at the time, there may be factual arguments that the other side would advance, which I think are unsupported by the record,
50 0 0 and therefore, there's no actual -- SPECIAL MASTER CLARK: Would or has? MR. HACKER: It depends -- there's footnotes that occasionally allude to the idea. There's a statement in one of the briefs that says this was pretext, and then there's no -- but they don't point to any evidence of pretext. They just assert that it was pretext. I don't know what the pretext is. We said we're not doing it because, you know, there was no funding, and that was necessary and appropriate to continue the project. SPECIAL MASTER CLARK: Pretext is a characterization. MR. HACKER: I understand that. There's some suggestion in the briefs that -- SPECIAL MASTER CLARK: I mean, they can characterize your facts as a pretext if they want. I guess, is that a factual dispute? MR. HACKER: That wouldn't be. That's why I'm saying I don't know what -- if they mean pretext, just to be kind of an argumentative point, but the underlying facts -- SPECIAL MASTER CLARK: But if it's a state-of-mind argument, then that's in dispute?
51 0 MR. HACKER: That would be right, if they're asserting that we had some ulterior plan all along, you know, and that's what this whole -- the whole Miller argument, which they don't really make aggressively outright, and that's why -- that's the only -- I don't mean to be, you know, resisting your questions, but I -- SPECIAL MASTER CLARK: Oh, no, no. I'm just -- MR. HACKER: -- literally don't -- SPECIAL MASTER CLARK: -- trying to understand. MR. HACKER: -- necessarily know what their argument with respect to Miller. I think the facts regarding Miller are undisputed. The memo says what it says. It doesn't say to the Governor, "Let's pretend, Governor. Let's keep acting like we're doing this, even though we don't want to." He says we ought to terminate, and the Governor says no. There's no evidence that the Governor then takes that and, as I say, you know, funds it for local schools or takes the money and puts it in roads. They may say that, but that is a creative factual dispute. The record doesn't show it. The underlying historical facts, we submit are, indeed, undisputed. That's our view of the historical
State of Florida v. Jeffrey Lovelace Docket Number: 05-1395
The following is a real-time transcript taken as closed captioning during the oral argument proceedings, and as such, may contain errors. This service is provided solely for the purpose of assisting those
More information>> HEAR YE, HEAR YE, HEAR YE, THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA IS NOT IN SESSION. ALL WHO HAVE CAUSE TO PLEAD, DRAW NEAR, GIVE ATTENTION AND YOU SHALL BE
>> HEAR YE, HEAR YE, HEAR YE, THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA IS NOT IN SESSION. ALL WHO HAVE CAUSE TO PLEAD, DRAW NEAR, GIVE ATTENTION AND YOU SHALL BE HEARD. GOD SAVE THESE UNITED STATES, THE GREAT STATE
More information>> WE'LL NOW PROCEED TO THE SECOND CASE ON OUR DOCKET. WHICH WHICH IS IN REAMENDMENT TO THE FLORIDA FAMILY LAW RULES OF PROCEDURE.
>> WE'LL NOW PROCEED TO THE SECOND CASE ON OUR DOCKET. WHICH WHICH IS IN REAMENDMENT TO THE FLORIDA FAMILY LAW RULES OF PROCEDURE. >> PLEASE THE COURT. MY NAME IS STEVEN COLMES, I'M HERE TO - - ON THE
More informationAdvisory Opinion to the Attorney General: Florida Minimum Wage Amendment
The following is a real-time transcript taken as closed captioning during the oral argument proceedings, and as such, may contain errors. This service is provided solely for the purpose of assisting those
More informationWe now go to the fourth and. final case on today's docket, which is MIA consulting group. versus haciendas villas Inc.. >> May it please the court.
We now go to the fourth and final case on today's docket, which is MIA consulting group versus haciendas villas Inc.. >> May it please the court. Brian Stack on behalf of the petitioner, MIA consulting.
More informationSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300
1 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 2 ------------------------------x 3 NML CAPITAL, LTD., 4 Plaintiff, 5 v. 08 Civ 6978 (TPG) 6 THE REPUBLIC OF ARGENTINA, 7 Defendant. 8 ------------------------------x
More informationBACKGROUND CONFERENCE CALL WITH SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS ON THE CONSEQUENCES OF ALLOWING THE PROTECT AMERICA ACT TO EXPIRE
BACKGROUND CONFERENCE CALL WITH SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS ON THE CONSEQUENCES OF ALLOWING THE PROTECT AMERICA ACT TO EXPIRE February 22, 2008-6:00 P.M. MR. ROEHRKASSE (Department of Justice): This
More information1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. 7 v. : No. 02-857. 10 Washington, D.C. 11 Monday, February 23, 2004
1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X 3 HOUSEHOLD CREDIT SERVICES, : 4 INC. and MBNA AMERICAN BANK, : 5 N.A., : 6 Petitioners : 7 v. : No. 02-857 8 SHARON R. PFENNIG.
More informationNOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO
Filed 8/27/14 Tesser Ruttenberg etc. v. Forever Entertainment CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying
More informationAttorneys Outline Texas Water Law Cases Before Supreme Court
Attorneys Outline Texas Water Law Cases Before Supreme Court By David Bowser AMARILLO "It's really turned into an interesting fight," says Marvin "Marty" Jones, an Amarillo lawyer with Sprouse Schrader
More informationFrank C. Walker, Jr. v. Virginia Insurance Reciprocal
The following is a real-time transcript taken as closed captioning during the oral argument proceedings, and as such, may contain errors. This service is provided solely for the purpose of assisting those
More informationAmendments to Rules Regulating The Florida Bar
The following is a real-time transcript taken as closed captioning during the oral argument proceedings, and as such, may contain errors. This service is provided solely for the purpose of assisting those
More informationThe Florida Bar v. Leonard Mark Dachs
The following is a real-time transcript taken as closed captioning during the oral argument proceedings, and as such, may contain errors. This service is provided solely for the purpose of assisting those
More information>> My name is Danielle Anguiano and I am a tutor of the Writing Center which is just outside these doors within the Student Learning Center.
>> My name is Danielle Anguiano and I am a tutor of the Writing Center which is just outside these doors within the Student Learning Center. Have any of you been to the Writing Center before? A couple
More informationCOURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Filed 7/25/12 Ehmke v. Larkin CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for
More informationTranscript of the Public Hearings of the Statutory Review Committee on Access to Information and Protection of Privacy
Transcript of the Public Hearings of the Statutory Review Committee on Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Date: Presenter: Wednesday, June 25, 2014 (9:30 a.m.) Vaughn Hammond Canadian Federation
More informationFlorida Division of Worker's Compensation v. Ricardo Cagnoli
The following is a real-time transcript taken as closed captioning during the oral argument proceedings, and as such, may contain errors. This service is provided solely for the purpose of assisting those
More informationCase 1:06-cr-00001-ESH Document 70 Filed 05/27/14 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:06-cr-00001-ESH Document 70 Filed 05/27/14 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 06cr001 (ESH) v. JACK A. ABRAMOFF DEFENDANT S MOTION
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
Case 5:13-cv-04137-JWL-JPO Document 16 Filed 02/04/14 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, for the use and benefit of LAWRENCE KEVIN WRIGHT,
More informationJanet E. Helms, Ph.D. Augustus Long Professor, Department of Counseling, Boston College
Janet E. Helms, Ph.D. Augustus Long Professor, Department of Counseling, Boston College Interviewed by Carlos P. Zalaquett, Ph.D., L.M.H.C Department of Psychological & Social Foundations University of
More informationSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 2 ------------------------------x 3 NML CAPITAL, et al., 4 Plaintiffs, v. 08 CV 6978(TPG) 5 6 THE REPUBLIC OF ARGENTINA, 7 Defendant. 8 ------------------------------x
More informationLarry W. Mallard vs Charlene G. Mallard
The following is a real-time transcript taken as closed captioning during the oral argument proceedings, and as such, may contain errors. This service is provided solely for the purpose of assisting those
More informationIN THE MANCHESTER COUNTY COURT No.2QT66034. 1 Bridge Street West Manchester M60 9DJ. Claimant. Defendant
1 0 1 0 1 IN THE MANCHESTER COUNTY COURT No.QT0 1 Bridge Street West Manchester M0 DJ 0 th November B e f o r e:- DISTRICT JUDGE MATHARU COMBINED SOLUTIONS UK Ltd. (Trading as Combined Parking Solutions)
More informationOFFER BY WPP GROUP PLC ("WPP")
THE TAKEOVER PANEL 2001/15 OFFER BY WPP GROUP PLC ("WPP") FOR TEMPUS GROUP PLC ("TEMPUS") 1. The Takeover Panel met on 31 October to hear an appeal by WPP against the Panel Executive's refusal to allow
More informationCase: 5:05-cv-00462-ART-JBT Doc #: 36 Filed: 01/12/07 Page: 1 of 9 - Page ID#: <pageid>
Case: 5:05-cv-00462-ART-JBT Doc #: 36 Filed: 01/12/07 Page: 1 of 9 - Page ID#: CIVIL ACTION NO. 05-462-JMH DENNIS CALDWELL, ET AL., UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY CENTRAL DIVISION
More informationUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. Case No. 82-11656 (CGM) IN RE:.. Chapter 11 JOHNS-MANVILLE CORPORATION,. ET AL,. One Bowling Green. New York, NY 10004 Debtors... Thursday,
More information1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. 2 x 3 CAMPBELL EWALD COMPANY, : 4 Petitioner : No. 14 857. 5 v. : 6 JOSE GOMEZ. : 7 x. 8 Washington, D.C.
1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 1 2 x 3 CAMPBELL EWALD COMPANY, : 4 Petitioner : No. 14 857 5 v. : 6 JOSE GOMEZ. : 7 x 8 Washington, D.C. 9 Wednesday, October 14, 2015 10 11 The above entitled
More informationSubmit a Valid Claim Form Deadline: February 12, 2016 Ask to be excluded Deadline: November 24, 2015. Object Deadline: November 24, 2015
NOTICE OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT California Superior Court, County of Los Angeles IF FIRE INSURANCE EXCHANGE APPLIED DEPRECIATION WHEN CALCULATING A PAYMENT MADE TO YOU ON A PROPERTY LOSS INSURANCE CLAIM,
More informationSmall Claims A self help pack:
Small Claims A self help pack: 1 Small Claims A self help pack: An Advisor s story: Alison came to the student advice centre feeling extremely frustrated as she could not get her 250 deposit back from
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals
In the United States Court of Appeals No. 12-3901 For the Seventh Circuit CINDY GOLDEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United
More informationThank you so much for having me. I m really excited to be here today.
Welcome to The Boomer Business Owner. My guest today is Ty Crandall. Ty is an honorary Baby Boomer, internationally known speaker, author, and business credit expert. With over 16 years of financial experience,
More informationERIE INS. EXCH. v. ESTATE OF JEANNE R. REESIDE, et al., No. 2941, Sept. Term 2009. HEADNOTE: Procedure Alternative Dispute Resolution Mediation
ERIE INS. EXCH. v. ESTATE OF JEANNE R. REESIDE, et al., No. 2941, Sept. Term 2009. HEADNOTE: Procedure Alternative Dispute Resolution Mediation The circuit court correctly declined to enforce settlement
More informationCase 1:08-cv-06957 Document 45 Filed 10/19/2009 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION
Case 1:08-cv-06957 Document 45 Filed 10/19/2009 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION ROBERT F. CAVOTO, ) ) Plaintiff, Counter-Defendant,
More informationS12F1507. RYMUZA v. RYMUZA. On January 13, 2012, the trial court entered a final judgment in the divorce
In the Supreme Court of Georgia Decided: November 19, 2012 S12F1507. RYMUZA v. RYMUZA. NAHMIAS, Justice. On January 13, 2012, the trial court entered a final judgment in the divorce action filed by appellee
More informationCOLOPLAST. Moderator: Lars Rasmussen September 22, 2015 5:00 p.m. GMT
Page 1 COLOPLAST September 22, 2015 5:00 p.m. GMT This is conference # 955389. Lars Rasmussen: Good evening. I am Lars Rasmussen, CEO of Coloplast and I'm joined by our CFO Anders Lonning-Skovgaard and
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ------------------------------X Docket#
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ------------------------------X Docket# TUMMINO, : 05-CV-355(erk) Plaintiff, : : - versus - : U.S. Courthouse : Brooklyn, New York ANDREW C. von
More informationKaynan Fitchner v. Lifesouth Community Blood Centers, Inc. SC08-174
The following is a real-time transcript taken as closed captioning during the oral argument proceedings, and as such, may contain errors. This service is provided solely for the purpose of assisting those
More informationFILED May 21, 2015 Carla Bender 4 th District Appellate Court, IL
NOTICE This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e(1. 2015 IL App (4th 140713-U NO. 4-14-0713
More informationHOW TO SURVIVE GARNISHMENT
HOW TO SURVIVE GARNISHMENT Todd Murray The Todd Murray Law Firm, PLLC 800 Washington Ave N Suite 704 Minneapolis, MN 55401 (612) 284-4141 todd@toddmurraylaw.com IMPORTANT INFORMATION PLEASE READ THIS FIRST
More informationHow To Defend Yourself In A Tax Court
Escape Conviction when Prosecuted for a Federal Tax Crime Court, DOJ, IRS no jurisdiction without specific Section of Title 26 quoted Why, in a "Federal District Court" when charged with a "tax crime"
More informationLIST BUILDING PROFITS
LIST BUILDING PROFITS BUILD YOUR LIST THE RIGHT WAY Jonathan Leger COURTESY OF LEARNFROMJON.COM - PRIVATE BUSINESS COACHING FROM A MULTI-MILLION DOLLAR INTERNET MARKETER + ACCESS TO PREMIUM AND EXCLUSIVE
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA. Memorandum and Order
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CAROSELLA & FERRY, P.C., Plaintiff, v. TIG INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. CIVIL ACTION NO. 00-2344 Memorandum and Order YOHN,
More informationTORT AND INSURANCE LAW REPORTER. Informal Discovery Interviews Between Defense Attorneys and Plaintiff's Treating Physicians
This article originally appeared in The Colorado Lawyer, Vol. 25, No. 26, June 1996. by Jeffrey R. Pilkington TORT AND INSURANCE LAW REPORTER Informal Discovery Interviews Between Defense Attorneys and
More informationYou ve Been Sued, Now What? A Roadmap Through An Employment Lawsuit
You ve Been Sued, Now What? A Roadmap Through An Employment Lawsuit California employers facing their first employment lawsuit can be in for a rude awakening. Such lawsuits are a harsh introduction to
More informationCounsel must be fully familiar with the Uniform Civil Rules for the Supreme Court 22 NYCRR Part 202.
JUSTICE GERALD E. LOEHR, J.S.C. Rockland County Supreme Court 1 South Main Street New City, New York 10956 Courtroom 1 Tel: (845) 483-8343 Fax: (845) 708-7236 Staff Bruce J. Pearl, Principal Law Secretary
More informationSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300
1 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 2 ------------------------------x 3 NML CAPITAL, LTD., 4 Plaintiff, 5 v. 08 Civ. 6978 (TPG) 6 THE REPUBLIC OF ARGENTINA, 7 Defendant. 8 ------------------------------x
More informationHEARING. Case File No.: 2012250422 CR STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, Plaintiff, CHRISTOPHER PIERCE, Respondent.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA COUNTY OF MECKLENBURG IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE DISTRICT COURT DIVISION Case File No.: 00 CR STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, Plaintiff, v. CHRISTOPHER PIERCE, HEARING Respondent.
More informationA Practical Summary of the New Supreme Court Civil Rules for Clark Wilson LLP Insurance Clients
A Practical Summary of the New Supreme Court Civil Rules for Clark Wilson LLP Insurance Clients by: Jennifer Loeb Clark Wilson LLP tel. 604.891.7766 jrl@cwilson.com Edited by: Larry Munn Clark Wilson LLP
More informationMajor General George Smith - 6: Issues Involved in the Serbian Deal
Major General George Smith - 6: Issues Involved in the Serbian Deal Welcome to the Defense Acquisition University. This material is for non-profit educational use only. Speaker's views and opinions are
More informationCase 1:11-cv-03236-CBA-VVP Document 13 Filed 01/10/12 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 82
Case 1:11-cv-03236-CBA-VVP Document 13 Filed 01/10/12 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 82 U N I T E D S T A T E S D I S T R I C T C O U R T E A S T E R N D I S T R I C T O F N E W Y O R K ------------------------------X
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
Filed 12/3/14 Backflip Software v. Cisco Systems CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not
More informationNo. 3 09 0033 THIRD DISTRICT A.D., 2009
No. 3 09 0033 Filed December 16, 2009 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS THIRD DISTRICT A.D., 2009 KEPPLE AND COMPANY, INC., ) Appeal from the Circuit Court an Illinois Corporation, ) of the 10th Judicial
More informationCase 1:06-cv-01892-CKK Document 30 Filed 05/20/08 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:06-cv-01892-CKK Document 30 Filed 05/20/08 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COVAD COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 06 1892 (CKK) REVONET,
More informationPetitioner QUALITY STORES, INC., ET AL. : - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x. argument before the Supreme Court of the United States
1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 1 2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x 3 4 UNITED STATES, Petitioner : : No. 12-1408 5 v. : 6 7 8 9 QUALITY STORES, INC., ET AL. : - - - - - - - - - - - - -
More informationALABAMA COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
REL03/02/07Anderson Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama
More informationWhat Is Small Claims Court? What Types Of Cases Can Be Filed In Small Claims Court? Should I Sue? Do I Have the Defendant s Address?
SMALL CLAIMS COURT What Is Small Claims Court? Nebraska law requires that every county court in the state have a division known as Small Claims Court (Nebraska Revised Statute 25-2801). Small Claims Court
More informationCASE 0:05-cv-01578-JMR-JJG Document 59 Filed 09/18/06 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA 05-CV-1578(JMR/JJG)
CASE 0:05-cv-01578-JMR-JJG Document 59 Filed 09/18/06 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA 05-CV-1578(JMR/JJG) State of Minnesota ) ) v. ) ORDER ) Robert B. Beale, Rebecca S.
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA PETITIONER S REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR REVIEW
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA THE FLORIDA BAR Complainant V. R. PATRICK MIRK Petitioner/Respondent / Case No: SC08-1423 Lower Tribunal: 2006-10,783 (13B) 2006-11,698 (13B) PETITIONER S REPLY BRIEF IN
More informationExpert advice. Practical solutions. Personal service. 1
Debt recovery talk In these uncertain economic times, it is very important that businesses make sure that their credit control is properly organised and enforced. Failure to do this will result in substantial
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE MEMORANDUM OPINION 2
IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE IN RE: Specialty Products Holdings Corp., et al. Bankruptcy No. 10-11780 Debtor(s) 1 Chapter 11 (Jointly Administered) Related to Doc.
More informationUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA OAKLAND DIVISION
Entered on Docket January 06, 2014 GLORIA L. FRANKLIN, CLERK U.S BANKRUPTCY COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA The following constitutes the order of the court. Signed January 3, 2014 William J. Lafferty,
More informationTRANSCRIPT OF A RECORDING OF A TELEPHONE CONVERSATION BETWEEN JOHN EHRLICHMAN AND HERBERT KALMBACH APRIL 19, 1973
TRANSCRIPT OF A RECORDING OF A TELEPHONE CONVERSATION BETWEEN JOHN EHRLICHMAN AND HERBERT KALMBACH APRIL 19, 1973 'Lo! Hi! How are you? I'm, I'm pretty good. Good. I'm, I'm, uh, scheduled for two tomorrow
More informationCase 2:06-cv-02631-SMM Document 17 Filed 04/13/07 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Case 2:06-cv-02631-SMM Document 17 Filed 04/13/07 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA JAMES BRETT MARCHANT, Plaintiff, 2:06-cv-02631 PHX JWS vs. ORDER AND OPINION [Re: Motion at
More informationSTATE OF VERMONT FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND ORDER
Drew et. al. v. Drew et. al., No. 174-6-10 Cacv (Teachout, J., Sept. 23, 2013). [The text of this Vermont trial court opinion is unofficial. It has been reformatted from the original. The accuracy of the
More information1 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON 2 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF KING 3 --------------------------------------------------
1 1 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON 2 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF KING 3 -------------------------------------------------- 4 KIRK R. HOGLE, ) VERBATIM REPORT OF 5 Plaintiff ) THE PROCEEDINGS 6
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Franke v. Bridgepoint Education, Inc. et al Doc. 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA In re BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION, INC., SECURITIES LITIGATION Civil No. 1cv JM (JLB)
More informationCybercrime: The Investigation, Prosecution and Defense of a Computer-Related Crime (3d ed.)
Cybercrime: The Investigation, Prosecution and Defense of a Computer-Related Crime (3d ed.) Edited by Ralph D. Clifford Carolina Academic Press, Durham, North Carolina, ISBN 978-1-59460-853-7 Price $38.00,
More informationTroy L. Blocker v. State of Florida SC07-2292
The following is a real-time transcript taken as closed captioning during the oral argument proceedings, and as such, may contain errors. This service is provided solely for the purpose of assisting those
More information8:08-cv-00541-LSC-TDT Doc # 301 Filed: 04/01/10 Page 1 of 10 - Page ID # 2724 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
8:08-cv-00541-LSC-TDT Doc # 301 Filed: 04/01/10 Page 1 of 10 - Page ID # 2724 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA PETER KIEWIT SONS INC. and KIEWIT CORPORATION, ATSER, LP,
More informationARBITRATION ADVISORY 1997-03 FEE ARBITRATION ISSUES INVOLVING CONTINGENCY FEES. August 22, 1997
ARBITRATION ADVISORY 1997-03 FEE ARBITRATION ISSUES INVOLVING CONTINGENCY FEES August 22, 1997 Points of view or opinions expressed in this document are those of the Committee on Mandatory Fee Arbitration.
More informationExcellence and Equity of Care and Education for Children and Families Part 3 Program Transcript
Excellence and Equity of Care and Education for Children and Families Part 3 Program Transcript FEMALE SPEAKER: Ms. Vazquez, in our final conversation, I'd like to speak with you about equity and excellence
More informationDEFENDANT ATTORNEY GENERAL S REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF HIS MOTION TO DISMISS
Case :0-cv-00-EHC Document Filed 0/0/0 Page of 0 PETER D. KEISLER Assistant Attorney General DANIEL KNAUSS United States Attorney THEODORE C. HIRT Assistant Branch Director Civil Division, Federal Programs
More informationHow To Decide If A Judgment Against A Man Is Valid
THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL TRIAL DIVISION THE MOUNTBATTEN SURETY COMPANY, INC. : October Term, 2001 Plaintiff, : v. : No. 3341 LANDMARK
More informationHIPAA IN A NUTSHELL: A Synopsis of How the HIPAA Privacy Rules Impact Ex Parte Communications. By Larry A. Golston, Jr.
HIPAA IN A NUTSHELL: A Synopsis of How the HIPAA Privacy Rules Impact Ex Parte Communications By Larry A. Golston, Jr. BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, P.C. 272 COMMERCE STREET POST OFFICE
More information2013 IL App (1st) 120898-U. No. 1-12-0898
2013 IL App (1st) 120898-U FOURTH DIVISION March 28, 2013 No. 1-12-0898 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances
More informationJAMAICA THE HON MR JUSTICE MORRISON JA THE HON MR JUSTICE BROOKS JA THE HON MS JUSTICE LAWRENCE-BESWICK JA (AG) BETWEEN GODFREY THOMPSON APPELLANT
[2014] JMCA Civ 37 JAMAICA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL SUPREME COURT CIVIL APPEAL NO 41/2007 BEFORE: THE HON MR JUSTICE MORRISON JA THE HON MR JUSTICE BROOKS JA THE HON MS JUSTICE LAWRENCE-BESWICK JA (AG) BETWEEN
More informationPetitioner, argument before the Supreme Court of the United States. JEFFREY T. GREEN, ESQ., Washington, D.C.; on behalf of
1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 1 2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x 3 BENJAMIN ROBERS, : 4 Petitioner, : No. 12-9012 5 v. : 6 UNITED STATES. : 7 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x 8 9
More informationProfiles of Chemical Engineers
Profiles of Chemical Engineers James Monroe Associate Attorney Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner Washington, DC Education: B.S. - Chemical Engineering, Washington University J.D. - George
More informationNO. 00-B-3532 IN RE: LEONARD O. PARKER, JR ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS
03/15/02 See News Release 020 for any concurrences and/or dissents. SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA NO. 00-B-3532 IN RE: LEONARD O. PARKER, JR ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS PER CURIAM This disciplinary
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA MEMORANDUM. BUCKWALTER, J. May 8, 2002
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION v. NO. 01-0272 M. ROBERT ULLMAN, Defendant. MEMORANDUM BUCKWALTER, J. May
More informationA: I thought you hated business. What changed your mind? A: MBA's are a dime a dozen these days. Are you sure that is the best route to take?
Dialog: LESSON 120 - MBA A: What are you doing tomorrow? B: I'm starting my MBA. A: I thought you hated business. What changed your mind? B: I do hate it, but I need to start making more money. A: MBA's
More informationDefining Aggregate Settlements: the Road Not to Take. By: Peter R. Jarvis and Trisha M. Rich. Summary and Introduction
Defining Aggregate Settlements: the Road Not to Take By: Peter R. Jarvis and Trisha M. Rich I Summary and Introduction ABA Model Rule 1.8(g) provides that: A lawyer who represents two or more clients shall
More informationSTEPS IN A MOCK TRIAL
STEPS IN A MOCK TRIAL 1. The Opening of the Court Either the Clerk of the Court of the judge will call the Court to order. When the judge enters, all the participants should remain standing until the judge
More information>> SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA IS NOW IN SESSION. PLEASE, BE SEATED. >> NOW COME TO THE THIRD CASE ON OUR DOCKET TODAY, IT IS CASTANO V.
>> SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA IS NOW IN SESSION. PLEASE, BE SEATED. >> NOW COME TO THE THIRD CASE ON OUR DOCKET TODAY, IT IS CASTANO V. THE STATE OF FLORIDA. >> GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONORS. MAY IT PLEASE THE
More information: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL 450 Lexington Avenue New York, New York 10017 Telephone (212) 450-4000 Facsimile (212) 450-6501 Benjamin S. Kaminetzky Elliot Moskowitz Daniel J. Schwartz Counsel to the Debtors and
More informationBreakthrough Lung Cancer Treatment Approved Webcast September 9, 2011 Renato Martins, M.D., M.P.H. Introduction
Breakthrough Lung Cancer Treatment Approved Webcast September 9, 2011 Renato Martins, M.D., M.P.H. Please remember the opinions expressed on Patient Power are not necessarily the views of Seattle Cancer
More informationFalse Claims Laws: What Every Public Contract Manager Needs to Know By Aaron P. Silberman 1
False Claims Laws: What Every Public Contract Manager Needs to Know By Aaron P. Silberman 1 When Do False Claims Laws Apply? The federal False Claims Act (FCA) applies to any requests for payment from
More informationMedical Malpractice VOIR DIRE QUESTIONS
Medical Malpractice VOIR DIRE QUESTIONS INTRODUCTION: Tell the jurors that this is a very big and a very important case. Do a SHORT summary of the case and the damages we are seeking. This summary should
More informationTranscript - Episode 2: When Corporate Culture Threatens Data Security
Transcript - Episode 2: When Corporate Culture Threatens Data Security Guest: Phil Huggins, Vice President, Stroz Friedberg Welcome to Episode 2 of the Business of Truth podcast by Stroz Friedberg, "When
More informationThe court held a hearing on March 27, 2008 to consider the application by
STATE OF MAINE CUMBERLAND, ss. SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL ACTION Do.cket Nos. cv-70-10..d. AP-06-56 ' I ',, '.', ',1-- I I. C\ J. ELIZABETH NIITCHELL, et al., v. Plaintiffs, PORTLAND FINE FURNITURE and DESIGN
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE. No. 2:08-md-01919-MJP. Lead Case No. C07-1874 MJP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE IN RE WASHINGTON MUTUAL, INC. SECURITIES, DERIVATIVE AND ERISA LITIGATION This Document Relates to: ERISA Action No. 2:08-md-01919-MJP
More informationMEDIATION STRATEGIES: WHAT PLAINTIFFS REALLY WANT By Jim Bleeke, SweetinBleeke Attorneys
MEDIATION STRATEGIES: WHAT PLAINTIFFS REALLY WANT By Jim Bleeke, SweetinBleeke Attorneys As defense attorneys, we often focus most of our efforts on assembling the most crucial facts and the strongest
More informationTHE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS
2015 UT App 7 THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS ADVANCED FORMING TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. PERMACAST, LLC; GARY CRADDOCK; AND PAXTON CRADDOCK, Defendants and Appellees. Opinion No. 20130949-CA
More informationIn order for a contract to be valid, certain elements must exist:
Unit 6 Contracts I. Definition A contract is a voluntary agreement between two or more parties that a court will enforce. The rights and obligations created by a contract apply only to the parties to the
More informationInternal Revenue Service Document Request to Department of Defense
Internal Revenue Service Document Request to Department of Defense The Defense Contract Audit Agency is not under a legal obligation, imposed by 26 U.S.C. 7602(a), to comply with an Internal Revenue Service
More informationPlease scroll down and continue reading for my response to the government s motion that I be examined by a government expert
My detractors on the internet, of which I have many, largely made up of tax lawyers who try to discredit me because I represent a threat their livelihood, and certain people whose ideas on the income tax
More informationUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION In re: JOSEPH R. O LONE, Case No.: 3:00-bk-5003-JAF Debtor. Chapter 7 / FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW This case
More informationHow To Appeal To The Supreme Court In North Carolina
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ABOUT YOUR APPEAL AND YOUR LAWYER A Guide Prepared by the Office of the Appellate Defender 1. WHO IS MY LAWYER? Your lawyer s name is on the notice that came with this guide. The
More informationCase 3:07-cv-01180-TEM Document 56 Filed 04/27/2009 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION
Case 3:07-cv-01180-TEM Document 56 Filed 04/27/2009 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION JAMES E. TOMLINSON and DARLENE TOMLINSON, his wife, v. Plaintiffs,
More informationIN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE : AL JAZEERA AMERICA, LLC, : : Plaintiff, : : v. : C.A. No. 8823-VCG : AT&T SERVICES, INC., : : Defendant. : : MOTION TO STAY OCTOBER 14, 2013 LETTER OPINION
More information