.jpg)
The fight between Citigroup and Wells Fargo for the remains of Wachovia moved into North Carolina’s courts this weekend. The new Complaint was filed by Wachovia’s former CEO, Bud Baker, and another Wachovia shareholder to enjoin Citigroup from seeking to enforce its Letter Agreement to acquire Wachovia.
The Plaintiffs obtained an immediate Temporary Restraining Order
I got an email invitation today to a seminar where one of the speakers will be speaking on "hot tubbing" with expert witnesses. I decided immediately that I would need to hire better looking experts in the future if this was going to catch on.
In all seriousness, it turns out that "hot tubbing" of experts had its origin in Australian courts, and it is becoming something of a "hot" subject here in the U.S. There’s an article in ABA Journal about it, and also an article in the New York Times.
What it means is that all of the experts on a particular subject are sworn in at the same time, and then sit as a panel to be examined jointly by the lawyers for the parties and the Court. The procedure even allows for one expert to question another expert directly.
Given the way the procedure works, it makes sense that hot tubbing is also known as "concurrent evidence." If you are interested in exactly how this procedure works, you can keep reading below.Continue Reading Expert Witnesses And Hot Tubs
Reid Pointe, LLC v. Stevens, 2008 NCBC 15 (N.C. Super. Ct. August 18, 2008).
The Business Court today threw out, on a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, an unfair and deceptive practices claim stemming from a dispute between members of a limited liability company. The Reid Pointe, LLC v. Stevens case also
There was an article in the ABA Journal a few months ago about the Judges who are the "rock stars" of electronic discovery issues. Two of those Judges, Paul Grimm of the District of Maryland and David Waxse of the District of Kansas, formed a "rock star trio" with Judge Tennille on an ABA panel earlier this year.
If a case involves only a breach of a covenant not to compete or a confidentiality agreement, it is not within the mandatory "unfair competition" jurisdiction of the North Carolina Business Court, based on two recent decisions.
The first case is Workplace Benefits, LLC v. Lifecare, Inc, decided by the Court on July 14, 2008. In that
North Carolina’s Business Court is a "model for the nation," according to Directorship Magazine’s Annual Guide to State Litigation.
In addition to complimenting the Business Court, the Annual Guide gave North Carolina’s litigation climate a green light, indicating that the "state’s liability climate encourages growth and job creation." It gave North Carolina a high national ranking
The North Carolina Court of Appeals has before it a number of the interesting issues decided by the Business Court over the past several months.
There are, by my count, fifteen Business Court decisions on appeal to the Court of Appeals. The cases involve class actions, derivative actions, forum selection clauses, motions to stay, and antitrust law, among other
This is a list of the eight cases (my count) in which Motions to Dismiss are fully briefed and ready for a ruling, with links to the Business Court file for each case:
CompuChem v. Shealy Environmental Services, Inc.: whether employee owed employer a fiduciary duty, validity of claim for aiding and abetting breach of
The Business Court has mandatory jurisdiction under N.C. Gen. Stat. §7A-45.4 over claims involving "antitrust law, except claims based solely on unfair competition under N.C. Gen. Stat. §75-1.1."
The Court gave a broad reading to its grant of its antitrust jurisdiction in an Order today in Sonic Automotive, Inc. v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, in
Looking ahead, there are a number of Business Court cases in which summary judgment motions have been fully briefed and in which rulings should be issued over the next few months. In alphabetical order, with links to the Business Court electronic file, they are:
Edgewater Services, Inc. v. Epic Logistics, Inc.: dispute between competing third