In the lead-up to oral arguments in the Purdue Pharma case at the Supreme Court, bankruptcy expert and law professor Ralph Brubaker spoke to Bloomberg about the key question at hand.
“Given the court’s existing jurisprudence, I would be personally shocked if they find there is statutory power for what the bankruptcy court approved in the Purdue case,” said Brubaker, who filed an amicus brief against Purdue in the case.
The father of the shooter at the Highland Park 4th of July parade pleaded guilty to seven counts of reckless conduct earlier in November, signaling that it is possible to hold family members accountable in similar cases. Professor Eric Johnson, a criminal law expert, spoke to the New York Times and USA Today about the case. Referring to the charges against the father in the case, Johnson said, “It’s a relatively novel — though I think defensible — theory of prosecution.”
While prosecutors are not changing the law or what it means to act recklessly, they are identifying new situations where they might apply it, he said.
More at nytimes.com and usatoday.com.
The Harvard Law School Bankruptcy Roundtable brings together corporate bankruptcy practitioners with bankruptcy scholars in an online venue to discuss critical issues in corporate bankruptcy. The Roundtable recently published a series on the Purdue Pharma bankruptcy case, where they featured several of the more than thirty briefs filed in the case, giving readers the opportunity to examine the legal and policy arguments for and against third party releases generally and the releases in this particular case. The first post in the series featured a summary of arguments from petitioner United States Trustee William K. Harrington, as well as amici briefs, including one filed by Professor Ralph Brubaker, arguing against a release of liability for the Sackler family.
Does the Lanham Act, which provides the national system of trademark registration and protects owners of registered marks against the use of similar marks, allow national political parties to prohibit individuals from using of their name and logo in communications? This is the key question in a case before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, in which the Libertarian National Committee is seeking to stop the Libertarian Party of Michigan from using its marks. The Libertarian Party of Michigan claims their use of the mark for political activities falls outside the Lanham Act’s protections designed for unauthorized use of trademarks in commerce. Professor Lena Shapiro, acting as counsel for the Libertarian Party of Michigan, stressed to Law360 the importance of protecting essential political activities and hopes the Sixth Circuit will rule that political activities should be excluded from trademark infringement law.
On September 21, 2023, College of Law students Trisha A. Makley and Natasha E. Spann were sworn in by the Honorable Eric I. Long, United States Magistrate Judge for the Central District of Illinois, at the U.S. Federal Courthouse in Urbana.
Under the supervision of the University of Illinois College of Law First Amendment Clinic Director Lena Shapiro, Makley and Spann will represent a previously pro se litigant in a federal civil rights trial centered on a First Amendment issue in the Central District of Illinois. Though working under the supervision of an experienced attorney, the students will be responsible for all aspects of the legal representation of their client.
Judge Eric I. Long (left) swears in First Amendment Clinic students (L to R) Natasha E. Spann and Trisha A. Makley.
Edit embedded media in the Files Tab and re-insert as needed.
The University of Illinois College of Law has been ranked 5th in the nation in the Gavel Trial Advocacy Rankings, the only law school in the state of Illinois to make the top ten.
The Gavel Rankings are the only empirical/quantitative ranking assessment of trial team programs. Per the Gavel Rankings website, these rankings “identify the toughest competitions by polling 25 of the most respected trial team coaches and directors. Coaches were asked to score each competition from 1 to 10, reflecting how difficult it is for a team to be successful at that given competition. Coaches didn’t rank competitions they hosted or those with which they were not familiar. Based on these rankings, each tournament was allocated a value. Teams are awarded points for winning a competition or being a finalist, semi-finalist, or (in some events) a quarterfinalist.”
The announcement was made on the Unscripted Direct podcast, during Episode 73. The podcast is hosted by the trial advocacy directors at UCLA and Berkeley, and also includes a discussion of the Illinois Law trial team successes being one of the big stories of the year in the national trial advocacy community.
The Illinois trial team students have boasted impressive results at the following competitions:
Hofstra Medical-Legal Trial Competition – Champions; Nina Grover awarded best advocate
Case Classic Trial Competition, hosted by Case Western – Finalists; Joaquin Cabana awarded as best semifinalist round advocate
Summit Cup Trial Competition, hosted by University of Denver School of Law – Semi-Finalists
Chicago Cup Advocacy Competition – Third place finish
Professor Tony Ghiotto, director of the Anderson Center and the trial advocacy program at Illinois summed it up best:
“This recognition is a testament to the hard work, dedication, and talent of the students. I challenged them all this year, sending them to the toughest national competitions and expecting them to rise to the occasion. Whether it was during our summer boot camp sessions, our “back-to-school” scrimmages, the countless hours they spent practicing in our courtrooms, or at the competitions themselves, the students always represented the College of Law professionally and zealously. I am so honored to be directing this trial advocacy program.”
Professor Colleen Murphy has co-authored an op-ed titled “Israel, Hamas, and the Narratives of Atrocity.” The piece was published on October 25 for the Daily Nous. An excerpt follows:
“Ending and preventing atrocity requires exposing and contesting the narratives that explain, rationalize, and defend the indefensible, enabling human beings to countenance and inflict suffering indifferent to the pain it creates. It requires a refusal to dehumanize fellow human beings and a refusal to see any person as ‘deserving’ of atrocity because they are perceived as oppressors, terrorists, and/or savages. It requires insisting on the necessity of restraint in action. Occupation does not justify massacre. Self-defense does not justify collective punishment and starvation. One’s humanity is not protected (nor is one’s security guaranteed) by abdicating one’s humanity in relation to others.”
Note: The views expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the University of Illinois College of Law.
In advance of a recent event in the Tolerance Means Dialogues discussion series that she co-founded, Professor Robin Fretwell Wilson sat down with Deseret News to discuss the importance of fostering open dialogue on tough issues, especially on college campuses. An influential family law scholar, Wilson was instrumental in the passage of the Utah Compromise in 2015 as well as the Respect for Marriage Act at the national level. Although legislative progress seems somewhat stalled on issues concerning the balance of religious freedom with LGBTQ rights, Wilson has begun to look beyond legislation alone for solutions, and feels strongly that universities can play an important role.
“Universities can choose to create the context around these discussions to make all students feel like they can speak publicly,” she said, emphasizing the need for students to experience conversations about important disagreements without fear.
Lenders to bankrupt firms are increasingly insisting upon controversial contract clauses known as roll-ups, which boosts investments by moving existing debt to the front of the repayment line. This kind of contract structure prioritizes existing debt repayment, potentially limiting the resources available for lower-ranking creditors. Despite their controversial nature, bankrupt firms and judges overseeing them are compelled to accept roll-ups to avoid complete closure. Although not a new tactic, roll-ups are becoming more prevalent, as seen in the Chapter 11 cases including Bed Bath & Beyond, Vice Media, and a significant deal with Rite Aid. Speaking with Bloomberg, Professor Ralph Brubaker pointed to the dominance of hedge funds and financial firms in negotiating these agreements and suggested rules prohibiting roll-ups might be necessary.
WeWork’s recent Chapter 11 filing in New Jersey is the seventh large bankruptcy filing in the state since the previous November, as corporations increasingly choose the state as the destination to restructure their debt. New Jersey’s share of large bankruptcies nationwide has risen to 5%, partly due to the stability provided by consistent judges in New Jersey and partly due to rulings attractive to corporations. Professor Robert Lawless told the Wall Street Journal changes may be needed to address the perception that companies can freely choose where to file their bankruptcy petitions. “I can understand the reasons why companies are going to New Jersey, but I still think this rampant forum shopping undermines confidence in the courts,” he said. “Something needs to be done.”
