DOCSLIB.ORG

Litigation and Enforcement During and After COVID-19

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Litigation and Enforcement During and After COVID-19 Litigation and Enforcement During and After COVID-19 Marc Wolinsky Carrie Reilly Emil Kleinhaus Elaine Golin John Savarese June 12, 2020 1 S&P 500 Performance 3500 3350 3200 3050 2900 2750 2600 2450 2300 2150 2000 2 Spike in Jobless Claims due to COVID-19 As of May 28, 2020 3 Business Impact of COVID-19 4 Litigation and Enforcement During and After COVID-19 Marc Wolinsky Carrie Reilly Emil Kleinhaus Elaine Golin John Savarese June 12, 2020 5 Chapter 11 After COVID-19 6 The Pier 1 Decision (District of Delaware) “The world has changed since the filing of these chapter 11 cases.” “COVID-19 presents a temporary, unforeseen, and unforeseeable glitch in the administration of the Debtors’ Bankruptcy Cases.” “The Debtors cannot operate as a going concern and produce the revenue necessary to pay rent because they have been ordered to close their business. The Debtors cannot effectively liquidate the inventory while their stores remain closed.” 7 “Retail cases have to move, and they have to move quickly.” — Judge David R. Jones Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz 8 Litigation and Enforcement During and After COVID-19 Marc Wolinsky Carrie Reilly Emil Kleinhaus Elaine Golin John Savarese June 12, 2020 9 Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act The CARES Act was signed into law on March 27, 2020 and provides $2 trillion in emergency relief to individuals, small businesses, large corporations, and financial institutions. The below highlights key portions of the Act: Paycheck Protection Main Street Lending Foreclosure Moratoria and Program (PPP) Payment Forbearance for Established to support Federally Backed The PPP is a guaranteed, lending to small and Mortgages unsecured loan program medium-sized businesses that helps fund payroll and that were in sound financial Borrowers with 1-4 family other costs of eligible small condition before the onset of mortgages can receive up to businesses, nonprofits, and the COVID-19 pandemic. 360 days of forbearance. self-employed persons during the COVID-19 60-day moratorium on pandemic. foreclosures. 120-day moratorium on evictions. 10 PPP at a Glance 4.5M $511B $113K $130.7B Number of loans Net dollars Average PPP Amount of funding given to date loaned to date loan size remaining JPMorgan Chase Bank and Bank of America are the largest PPP lenders to date. JPMorgan has funded 256,978 loans totaling $28.6B; Bank of America has funded 325,853 loans totaling $24.9B. 11 Litigation and Enforcement During and After COVID-19 Marc Wolinsky Carrie Reilly Emil Kleinhaus Elaine Golin John Savarese June 12, 2020 12 Business may not be proceeding at quite the same pace we have been used to, but enforcement is continuing. Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz 13 Key Substantive Areas DOJ/US Attorneys’ Offices Federal prosecutorsKey continue Substantive to focus on traditional enforcement Areas priorities including antitrust, anti-money laundering, and insider trading, but COVID-related fraud has been added to the mix. SEC A massive surge in the number of whistleblower tips and the amount of whistleblower awards is bringing even more cases to the SEC’s attention. State Attorneys General While State Attorneys General are still focused on “mass toxic tort” issues, COVID-related fraud will also be on the agenda. 14 Marc Wolinsky Marc Wolinsky has been a member of the Litigation Department at Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz since 1987. His practice includes corporate governance, contracts, antitrust, insurance and securities litigation. Marc has been involved in a number of the most significant litigation battles in the Delaware Court of Chancery, leading the successful defense of Airgas’ “poison pill” and the successful effort to force Dow Chemical to close on its acquisition of Rohm and Haas. He was the lead lawyer representing J.C. Flowers, Bank of America and JPMorgan Chase in litigation with Sallie Mae over whether Sallie Mae had suffered a material adverse change in its business and successfully defended multi-forum shareholder litigation challenging JPMorgan’s acquisition of Bear Stearns. Marc also has actively litigated derivative suits and securities class actions, and most recently represented Hewlett Packard in resolving derivative, class action and ERISA litigation resulting from its acquisition of Autonomy. Following 9/11, Marc was a lead member of the team representing Larry Silverstein in insurance litigation arising out of the destruction of the World Trade Center and was a member of the trial team that convinced a New York jury that the attacks on the World Trade Center should be treated as two “occurrences” for insurance purposes. He then led the effort to settle the case, which resulted in what was reported to be the largest property insurance settlement in history. His Partner Litigation antitrust matters include the representation of General Mills in an FTC investigation of its acquisition of Pillsbury, the defense of Cardinal Health in the FTC P: 212.403.1226 challenge to its acquisition of Bergen Brunswig and the representation of Great Northern Nekoosa in its antitrust suit against Georgia Pacific. F: 212.403.2226 [email protected] As part of his pro bono work, Marc represented Joseph Steffan in his challenge to the ban on the service of gay men and women in the military, arguing the case to the D.C. Circuit sitting en banc. He successfully reversed the manslaughter conviction of Anthony Oddone in the New York Court of Appeals and submitted an amicus brief on behalf of the Innocence Project as part of the successful exoneration of a Louisiana death row inmate. Marc was the recipient of the 2017 Servant of Justice Award from the Legal Aid Society of New York. Marc has argued appeals in the D.C. Circuit, the New York Court of Appeals and the Appellate Divisions of the New York State Supreme Court and has litigated in state, federal and bankruptcy courts around the country. He is admitted to practice in the State of New York, the United States District Court for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York, the United States Courts of Appeals for the Second, Seventh, Ninth and D.C. Circuits and the United States Supreme Court. Marc is recognized as one of the nation’s leading lawyers in his field by Chambers USA noting he is “renowned for his work litigating in the Delaware Court of Chancery.” He is recognized as a National Practice Area Star and a Local Litigation Star by Benchmark Litigation. Experts Guides includes Marc as a leading lawyer in its Best of the Best, Best of the Best USA and Litigation rankings. Marc is also recognized as one of the 500 leading lawyers in America by Lawdragon and an expert in Litigation by Who’s Who Legal. Marc joined Wachtell Lipton after clerking for the Honorable Henry J. Friendly of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit from 1980 – 1981. He received his B.A. with high honors from Swarthmore College in 1977 and his J.D. with honors from the University of Chicago Law School. While in law school, he was a member of The University of Chicago Law Review and served as a Comment and Articles Editor. 15 John F. Savarese John F. Savarese has been a partner in the Litigation Department of Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz for the past 25 years. He has represented numerous Fortune 500 corporations, major financial institutions and senior executives in SEC and other regulatory enforcement proceedings, as well as white-collar criminal investigations, complex securities litigations, and internal investigations. His extensive experience includes major investigations arising out of the financial crisis of 2008, as well as accounting fraud, insider trading, criminal tax, and criminal antitrust allegations. Mr. Savarese joined Wachtell Lipton in 1988, after working in the United States Attorneys’ Office for the Southern District of New York, where he tried numerous jury trials, received the Attorney General’s John Marshall Award for Outstanding Legal Achievement, and also served as Chief Appellate Attorney. Prior to his work with the United States Attorneys’ Office, Mr. Savarese served as a law clerk to Justice William J. Brennan of the United States Supreme Court, and to the Honorable Louis H. Pollak of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Mr. Savarese teaches a course on white-collar criminal law and procedure at Harvard Law School. He serves on the Executive Committee of the New York City Bar Association and was the first chairman of the Association’s White Collar Criminal Law Committee. He is a member of the American Law Institute, and Partner Litigation serves as Adviser to the ALI’s project on Principles of Law, Compliance, Enforcement, and Risk Management. He also is a frequent lecturer and panelist for the P: 212.403.1235 American Bar Association, Stanford Law School’s Directors’ College program, the Practising Law Institute, and the Securities Industry and Financial Markets F: 212.403.2235 Association concerning a wide variety of topics, including defending civil and criminal litigation, handling corporate crises and conducting internal investigations. [email protected] He has written numerous articles on those subjects and serves as a member of the Board of Editors of the “Wall Street Lawyer.” Mr. Savarese also is chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Vera Institute of Justice in New York, a member of the Dean’s Advisory Board at Harvard Law School, a member of the board of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, and the former President of the board of trustees of The Brearley School in New York. Mr. Savarese graduated magna cum laude from Harvard University in 1977 and received his JD cum laude from Harvard Law School in 1981, where he was an editor of the Harvard Law Review.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Judical Stratification and the Reputations of the United States Courts of Appeals
    Florida State University Law Review Volume 32 Issue 4 Article 14 2005 Judical Stratification and the Reputations of the United States Courts of Appeals Michael E. Solimine [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.law.fsu.edu/lr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Michael E. Solimine, Judical Stratification and the Reputations of the United States Courts of Appeals, 32 Fla. St. U. L. Rev. (2006) . https://ir.law.fsu.edu/lr/vol32/iss4/14 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Florida State University Law Review by an authorized editor of Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW JUDICAL STRATIFICATION AND THE REPUTATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES COURTS OF APPEALS Michael E. Solimine VOLUME 32 SUMMER 2005 NUMBER 4 Recommended citation: Michael E. Solimine, Judical Stratification and the Reputations of the United States Courts of Appeals, 32 FLA. ST. U. L. REV. 1331 (2005). JUDICIAL STRATIFICATION AND THE REPUTATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES COURTS OF APPEALS MICHAEL E. SOLIMINE* I. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................. 1331 II. MEASURING JUDICIAL REPUTATION, PRESTIGE, AND INFLUENCE: INDIVIDUAL JUDGES AND MULTIMEMBER COURTS ............................................................... 1333 III. MEASURING THE REPUTATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES COURTS OF APPEALS . 1339 IV. THE RISE AND FALL OF
    [Show full text]
  • Visiting Judges
    Visiting Judges Marin K. Levy* Despite the fact that Article III judges hold particular seats on particular courts, the federal system rests on judicial interchangeability. Hundreds of judges “visit” other courts each year and collectively help decide thousands of appeals. Anyone from a retired Supreme Court Justice to a judge from the U.S. Court of International Trade to a district judge from out of circuit may come and hear cases on a given court of appeals. Although much has been written about the structure of the federal courts and the nature of Article III judgeships, little attention has been paid to the phenomenon of “sitting by designation”—how it came to be, how it functions today, and what it reveals about the judiciary more broadly. This Article offers an overdue account of visiting judges. It begins by providing an origin story, showing how the current practice stems from two radically different traditions. The first saw judges as fixed geographically, and allowed for visitors only as a stopgap measure when individual judges fell ill or courts fell into arrears with their cases. The second assumed greater fluidity within the courts, requiring Supreme Court Justices to ride circuit—to visit different regions and act as trial and appellate judges—for the first half of the Court’s history. These two traditions together provide the critical context for modern-day visiting. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15779/Z38ZK55M67 Copyright © 2019 California Law Review, Inc. California Law Review, Inc. (CLR) is a California nonprofit corporation. CLR and the authors are solely responsible for the content of their publications.
    [Show full text]
  • Choosing the Next Supreme Court Justice: an Empirical Ranking of Judicial Performance†
    Choosing the Next Supreme Court Justice: † An Empirical Ranking of Judicial Performance Stephen Choi* ** Mitu Gulati † © 2004 Stephen Choi and Mitu Gulati. * Roger J. Traynor Professor, U.C. Berkeley Law School (Boalt Hall). ** Professor of Law, Georgetown University. Kindly e-mail comments to [email protected] and [email protected]. Erin Dengan, Édeanna Johnson-Chebbi, Margaret Rodgers, Rishi Sharma, Jennifer Dukart, and Alice Kuo provided research assistance. Kimberly Brickell deserves special thanks for her work. Aspects of this draft benefited from discussions with Alex Aleinikoff, Scott Baker, Lee Epstein, Tracey George, Prea Gulati, Vicki Jackson, Mike Klarman, Kim Krawiec, Kaleb Michaud, Un Kyung Park, Greg Mitchell, Jim Rossi, Ed Kitch, Paul Mahoney, Jim Ryan, Paul Stefan, George Triantis, Mark Seidenfeld, and Eric Talley. For comments on the draft itself, we are grateful to Michael Bailey, Suzette Baker, Bill Bratton, James Brudney, Steve Bundy, Brannon Denning, Phil Frickey, Michael Gerhardt, Steve Goldberg, Pauline Kim, Bill Marshall, Don Langevoort, Judith Resnik, Keith Sharfman, Steve Salop, Michael Seidman, Michael Solimine, Gerry Spann, Mark Tushnet, David Vladeck, Robin West, Arnold Zellner, Kathy Zeiler, Todd Zywicki and participants at workshops at Berkeley, Georgetown, Virginia, FSU, and UNC - Chapel Hill. Given the unusually large number of people who have e-mailed us with comments on this project, it is likely that there are some who we have inadvertently failed to thank. Our sincerest apologies to them. Disclosure: Funding for this project was provided entirely by our respective law schools. One of us was a law clerk to two of the judges in the sample: Samuel Alito of the Third Circuit and Sandra Lynch of the First Circuit.
    [Show full text]
  • Panel Assignment in the Federal Courts of Appeals Marin K
    Cornell Law Review Volume 103 Article 2 Issue 1 November 2017 Panel Assignment in the Federal Courts of Appeals Marin K. Levy Duke University School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/clr Part of the Courts Commons Recommended Citation Marin K. Levy, Panel Assignment in the Federal Courts of Appeals, 103 Cornell L. Rev. 65 (2017) Available at: https://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/clr/vol103/iss1/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Cornell Law Review by an authorized editor of Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. \\jciprod01\productn\C\CRN\103-1\CRN102.txt unknown Seq: 1 17-NOV-17 13:58 PANEL ASSIGNMENT IN THE FEDERAL COURTS OF APPEALS Marin K. Levy† It is common knowledge that the federal courts of appeals typically hear cases in panels of three judges and that the composition of the panel can have significant consequences for case outcomes and for legal doctrine more generally. Yet neither legal scholars nor social scientists have focused on the question of how judges are selected for their panels. Instead, a substantial body of scholarship simply assumes that panel assignment is random. This Article provides what, up until this point, has been a missing account of panel assignment. Drawing on a multiyear qualitative study of five circuit courts, including in-depth inter- views with thirty-five judges and senior administrators, I show that strictly random selection is a myth, and an improb- able one at that—in many instances, it would have been im- possible as a practical matter for the courts studied here to create their panels by random draw.
    [Show full text]
  • Trailblazers and Those That Followed : Personal Experiences, Gender, and Judicial Empathy
    University of Louisville ThinkIR: The University of Louisville's Institutional Repository Faculty Scholarship 9-2015 Trailblazers and those that followed : personal experiences, gender, and judicial empathy. Laura P. Moyer University of Louisville, [email protected] Susan B. Haire Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.library.louisville.edu/faculty Part of the American Politics Commons, Civil Rights and Discrimination Commons, Courts Commons, Judges Commons, and the Law and Gender Commons Original Publication Information This is the peer reviewed version of the following article: Moyer, Laura P. and Susan Haire. "Trailblazers and Those That Followed: Personal Experiences, Gender, and Judicial Empathy." 2015. Law and Society Review 49(3): 665-689. which has been published in final form at http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/lasr.12150. This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance with Wiley Terms and Conditions for Self-Archiving. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by ThinkIR: The University of Louisville's Institutional Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of ThinkIR: The University of Louisville's Institutional Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Trailblazers and Those That Followed: Personal Experiences, Gender, and Judicial Empathy Laura P. Moyer University of Louisville Susan B. Haire University of Georgia Version: May 6, 2015 Abstract This paper investigates one causal mechanism that may explain why female judges on the federal appellate courts are more likely than men to side with plaintiffs in sex discrimination cases. To test whether personal experiences with inequality are related to empathetic responses to the claims of female plaintiffs, we focus on the first wave of female judges, who attended law school during a time of severe gender inequality.
    [Show full text]
  • The First Circuit'sfirst Woman
    The First Circuit’sFirst Wom a n Late one night, when the Sandra L. Lynch was right. tourists had returned to their hotels Congress was appalled. Lynch’s and the streets of Isla Verde, Puerto dissent caught the attention of a For the Rico, were all but deserted, a young congressional staffer, also a woman, woman stepped out of her car, and a who persuaded a legislator to author Honorable man’s voice immediately ordered her a bill making it clear that the term Sandra Lynch, back in. The man, holding a knife, “serious bodily injury” includes the most forced her to drive to a deserted rape. important beach, where he brandished a gun “Apparently the bill flew through and raped her. Sometime later, when both houses in two weeks,” says decision is the police found the woman running Lynch (LAW’71). “I thought it was about the case along the road frantically waving her lucky that there was a woman staffer that isn’t in arms, she was so traumatized she in Congress who saw the issue the front of you could not speak. way I did and had the willpower to The weapon-wielding assailant bring it up.” By Art Jahnke was convicted of carjacking, and ten At the time, in June of 1996, years were added to his sentence Sandra Lynch was the only woman because the crime involved serious serving on the First Circuit Court bodily injury. But when the case was of Appeals and the only woman who appealed, the ten-year premium was had ever had served on it.
    [Show full text]
  • Decision Making in Us Federal Specialized
    THE CONSEQUENCES OF SPECIALIZATION: DECISION MAKING IN U.S. FEDERAL SPECIALIZED COURTS Ryan J. Williams A dissertation submitted to the faculty of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of Political Science in the College of Arts and Sciences. Chapel Hill 2019 Approved by: Kevin T. McGuire Isaac Unah Jason M. Roberts Virginia Gray Brett W. Curry © 2019 Ryan J. Williams ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ii ABSTRACT Ryan J. Williams: The Consequences of Specialization: Decision Making in U.S. Federal Specialized Courts (Under the direction of Kevin T. McGuire) Political scientists have devoted little attention to the role of specialized courts in the United States federal and state judicial systems. At the federal level, theories of judicial decision making and institutional structures widely accepted in discussions of the U.S. Supreme Court and other generalist courts (the federal courts of appeals and district courts) have seen little examination in the context of specialized courts. In particular, scholars are just beginning to untangle the relationship between judicial expertise and decision making, as well as to understand how specialized courts interact with the bureaucratic agencies they review and the litigants who appear before them. In this dissertation, I examine the consequences of specialization in the federal judiciary. The first chapter introduces the landscape of existing federal specialized courts. The second chapter investigates the patterns of recent appointments to specialized courts, focusing specifically on how the qualifications of specialized court judges compare to those of generalists. The third chapter considers the role of expertise in a specialized court, the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, and argues that expertise enhances the ability for judges to apply their ideologies to complex, technical cases.
    [Show full text]
  • The New Law School We’Re Not Just Talking About the Redstone Building
    THE ALUMNI MAGAZINE OF Redstone Building Moving Forward Annual Report BOSTON UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW Dedication ceremony Alumni/faculty of Giving opens the law school’s task forces achieve Building on Excellence: THE newest facility. P. 2 next level of legal The Campaign for BU RECORD education. P. 4 School of Law. P. 45 FALL 2014 THE NEW LAW SCHOOL WE’RE NOT JUST TALKING ABOUT THE REDSTONE BUILDING. 1 INSIDE FALL 2014 THE RECORD 2 The Alumni Magazine of Boston University School of Law Maureen A. O’Rourke Dean, Michaels Faculty Research Scholar, Professor of Law Development & Alumni Relations Office Lillian Bicchieri, Development Coordinator Sara Dacey, Assistant Director of Alumni Relations Zach Dubin, Leadership Gift Officer Caroline Kernan, Assistant Director 18 of the Annual Fund Terry McManus, Assistant Dean for NEWS & UPDATES SNAPSHOT Development & Alumni Relations 20 l BU LAW Faculty 2 l TRULY TRANSFORMED Nathaniel O’Connell, Leadership Gift Officer Behind the Scenes Redstone Building dedication celebrates the School of Law’s Hope Whalen, Reunion Coordinator newest facility. 24 l Commencement 2014 Communications & Marketing Office FEATURES John Cahill, Associate Director of Digital Strategy 26 l Public Interest/ 4 l COVER STORY l MOVING FORWARD Pro Bono News Ann Comer-Woods, Director of Alumni employers advise faculty task forces on achieving the Communications & Marketing next level of legal education. Lauren Eckenroth, Senior Writer 28 l Getting to Know the Class of 2017 8 l MOTION AFTER MOTION Elizabeth Hines, Assistant Director of Bernard Fielding (’58), South Carolina’s first black probate Marketing Communications judge, reflects on the struggle for racial justice and equality.
    [Show full text]
  • On Not Making Law
    GULATI.FMT 04/01/99 5:01 PM ON NOT MAKING LAW MITU GULATI* AND C.M.A. MCCAULIFF** I INTRODUCTION Consider the following scenario: A three-judge panel on a federal court of appeals has before it a complex se- curities law case. Each of the three judges on the panel is a former criminal law- yer. Among the three, the only experience any one of them has with securities law is a single course on the subject that one of them took thirty years ago. The central issue in the case is both difficult and close. Although there is no useful case law on point, the issue frequently arises both in litigation and in prac- tice. Many cases have involved the issue, but each court has found an alternative basis to decide the case before it, leaving the issue unresolved. Presently, at least two district court cases that raise a similar issue are on appeal in other circuits. If the panel tackles the issue squarely, its decision is likely to affect both the pending litigation in those other cases and the behavior of corporate actors in future transactions. The judges do not have strong feelings about how the case should come out. Each side has made out a strong case. The judges are, however, concerned about the amount of time and effort that writing an opinion in this case is likely to take. Given the lack of expertise, the judges are each concerned about the errors they might make in an opinion. Errors here are likely to be costly not only because the opinion will be binding precedent in this circuit, but also because the opinion is likely to influence other circuits.
    [Show full text]
  • The Nomination of Justice Sotomayor Formerly: the Replacement of Justice Souter
    www.rbs0.com/sotomayor.pdf 3 Aug 2009 Page 1 of 185 The Nomination of Justice Sotomayor formerly: The Replacement of Justice Souter Copyright 2009 by Ronald B. Standler No copyright claimed for works of the U.S. Government. No copyright claimed for quotations from any source, except for selection of such quotations. Keywords history, justice, nomination, Richard Posner, Kathleen Sullivan, Diane Wood, Sonia Sotomayor, U.S. Supreme Court Table of Contents Introduction . 4 Responsibilities of a Justice . 5 Oath of Office . 5 Conflict of Interest . 6 Due Process . 7 Judicial Code of Conduct . 8 why politicians undesirable on the Court . 9 Obama in Oct 2008 . 10 First Week: 1-8 May 2009 . 12 Obama’s 1 May briefing . 12 possible candidates . 14 Holland’s list . 14 Halloran’s list . 16 Slate’s list . 16 New York Times’ list . 17 commentary . 18 ignoring Judge Posner . 20 Prof. Kathleen Sullivan . 22 schedule . 23 judicial monastery ? . 24 commentary about “empathy” . 26 other commentary . 28 at least one Republican not a homophobe . 32 www.rbs0.com/sotomayor.pdf 3 Aug 2009 Page 2 of 185 Second Week: 9-15 May 2009 . 34 why not a scientist/attorney on the Court ? . 34 commentary . 35 White House Press Briefing 12 May . 41 schedule . 42 list of candidates . 44 opinion poll . 46 15 May: interviews not begun . 49 a rational method for choosing . 49 Judge Sotomayor . 51 Sotomayor’s 2001 lecture . 53 Judge Diane Wood . 56 Third Week: 16-23 May 2009 . 57 vultures begin to circle . 57 another list of candidates . 63 new candidate and interviews .
    [Show full text]
  • Congressional Record United States Th of America PROCEEDINGS and DEBATES of the 108 CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION
    E PL UR UM IB N U U S Congressional Record United States th of America PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 108 CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION Vol. 149 WASHINGTON, MONDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 2003 No. 24 House of Representatives The House was not in session today. Its next meeting will be held on Tuesday, February 11, 2003, at 12:30 p.m. Senate MONDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 2003 The Senate met at 11 a.m. and was great things for You throughout this SCHEDULE called to order by the Honorable NORM new week. You are our Lord and Sav- Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, this morn- COLEMAN, a Senator from the State of iour. Amen. ing the Senate will resume consider- Minnesota. f ation of the nomination of Miguel Estrada to be a circuit judge for the DC PRAYER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Circuit. The Chaplain, Dr. Lloyd John The Honorable NORM COLEMAN led On Thursday we attempted to reach a Ogilvie, offered the following prayer: the Pledge of Allegiance, as follows: consent agreement which would have Gracious God, who knows our needs allowed for a vote on that nomination before we ask You for Your help, and I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Repub- during today’s session. Unfortunately, has plans for us and our Nation ready lic for which it stands, one nation under God, that consent was not granted last to reveal to leaders who humble them- indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thursday. However, it is still my hope selves and seek Your guidance, we f to work with my colleagues on the praise You for the privilege of being other side of the aisle to set a time cer- alive and the delight of serving You.
    [Show full text]
  • Advisory Committee on Appellate Rules
    ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON APPELLATE RULES Washington, DC April 13-14, 2004 Agenda for Spring 2004 Meeting of Advisory Committee on Appellate Rules April 13-14, 2004 Washington, D.C. 1. Introductions II. Approval of Minutes of November 2003 Meeting III. Report on January 2004 Meeting of Standing Committee IV. Action Items A. Proposed Amendments Published for Comment in August 2003 1. Rule 4(a)(6) (clarify whether verbal communication provides "notice") [Item No. 00-08] 2 Washington's Birthday Package: Rules 26(a)(4) and 45(a)(2) [Item No. 00-03] 3. New Rule 27(d)(1)(E) (apply typeface and type-style limitations to motions) [Item No. 02-01] 4. Cross-Appeals Package: Rules 28(c) and 28(h), new Rule 28.1, and Rules 32(a)(7)(C) and 34(d) [Item No. 00-12] 5. New Rule 32.1 (citation of unpublished decisions) [Item No. 01-01] 6. Rule 35(a) (disqualified judges/en banc rehearing) [Item No. 00-11] V Discussion Items A. Item No. 00-07 (FRAP 4 - time for Hyde Amendment appeals) (Mr. Letter) B. Item No. 03-06 (FRAP 3 - defining parties) (Mr. Letter) C. Item No 03-08 (FRAP 4(c)(1) mandate simultaneous affidavit) (Mr. Letter) D. Item No 03-09 (FRAP 4(a)(1)(B) & 40(a)(1) - U.S. officer sued in individual capacity) (Mr. Letter) E. Items Awaiting Initial Discussion I Item No. 03-10 (new FRAP 25.1) - privacy protections) VI. Additional Old Business and New Business (If Any) VII. Schedule Dates and Location of Fall 2004 Meeting VIII.
    [Show full text]