<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Legal News</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.jmalawyers.com/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.jmalawyers.com</link>
	<description>Latest Legal News</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 22 Feb 2012 15:03:35 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.3</generator>
		<item>
		<title>With Debts Of $ 493.2M, Charter Airline For U.S. Military Files For Chapter 11</title>
		<link>http://www.jmalawyers.com/with-debts-of-493-2m-charter-airline-for-u-s-military-files-for-chapter-11</link>
		<comments>http://www.jmalawyers.com/with-debts-of-493-2m-charter-airline-for-u-s-military-files-for-chapter-11#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 22 Feb 2012 15:03:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>spockyboy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Legal News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[493.2M]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Airline]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Chapter]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Charter]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Debts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Files]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Military]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S.]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.jmalawyers.com/with-debts-of-493-2m-charter-airline-for-u-s-military-files-for-chapter-11</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[BROOKLYN, NY &#8211; Global Aviation Holdings Inc. (GAH), the largest charter airline provider to the U.S. military, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy Feb. 5 in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of New York, citing $ 493.2 million in debts (In Re: Global Aviation Holdings Inc., No. 12-40783, Chapter 11, E.D. N.Y. Bkcy.). [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>BROOKLYN, NY &#8211; Global Aviation Holdings Inc. (GAH), the largest charter airline provider to the U.S. military, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy Feb. 5 in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of New York, citing $   493.2 million in debts (In Re: Global Aviation Holdings Inc., No. 12-40783, Chapter 11, E.D. N.Y. Bkcy.).<br />
<a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&#038;keyenum=25271&#038;keytnum=0&#038;searchtype=get&#038;search=2012-649%20Mealey%27s%20Daily%20News%20Update%205&#038;view=full&#038;ORIGINATION_CODE=00144 target=_blank">LexisNexis® Mealey&#8217;s™ Daily Legal News</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.jmalawyers.com/with-debts-of-493-2m-charter-airline-for-u-s-military-files-for-chapter-11/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>2nd Circuit: Forum State&#8217;s Limitations Period, Borrowing Statute Apply</title>
		<link>http://www.jmalawyers.com/2nd-circuit-forum-states-limitations-period-borrowing-statute-apply</link>
		<comments>http://www.jmalawyers.com/2nd-circuit-forum-states-limitations-period-borrowing-statute-apply#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 19 Feb 2012 15:28:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>spockyboy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Legal News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Apply]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Borrowing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Forum]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Limitations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Period]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State's]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Statute]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.jmalawyers.com/2nd-circuit-forum-states-limitations-period-borrowing-statute-apply</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[NEW YORK &#8211; In an action for benefits under Section 502 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, the forum state&#8217;s statute of limitations, including its borrowing statute, applies, the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed Feb. 1 (Joseph G. Muto, et al. v. CBS Corporation f/k/a Westinghouse Electric Corporation, et al., No. 10-3038-cv, [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>NEW YORK &#8211; In an action for benefits under Section 502 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, the forum state&#8217;s statute of limitations, including its borrowing statute, applies, the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed Feb. 1 (Joseph G. Muto, et al. v. CBS Corporation f/k/a Westinghouse Electric Corporation, et al., No. 10-3038-cv, 2nd Cir.; 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 1869).<br />
<a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&#038;keyenum=25271&#038;keytnum=0&#038;searchtype=get&#038;search=2012-649%20Mealey%27s%20Daily%20News%20Update%204&#038;view=full&#038;ORIGINATION_CODE=00144 target=_blank">LexisNexis® Mealey&#8217;s™ Daily Legal News</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.jmalawyers.com/2nd-circuit-forum-states-limitations-period-borrowing-statute-apply/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>7th Circuit Rules For Abbott On Former Employees&#8217; ERISA Interference Claims</title>
		<link>http://www.jmalawyers.com/7th-circuit-rules-for-abbott-on-former-employees-erisa-interference-claims</link>
		<comments>http://www.jmalawyers.com/7th-circuit-rules-for-abbott-on-former-employees-erisa-interference-claims#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 16 Feb 2012 15:59:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>spockyboy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Legal News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Abbott]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Claims]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Employees]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ERISA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Former]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Interference]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rules]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.jmalawyers.com/7th-circuit-rules-for-abbott-on-former-employees-erisa-interference-claims</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[CHICAGO &#8211; A certified class of former employees of Abbott Laboratories failed to prove that Abbott created a spin-off unit to avoid paying retirement benefits in violation of Section 510 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, the Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed Feb. 3 (Myla Nauman, et al. v. Abbott Laboratories, et [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>CHICAGO &#8211; A certified class of former employees of Abbott Laboratories failed to prove that Abbott created a spin-off unit to avoid paying retirement benefits in violation of Section 510 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, the Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed Feb. 3 (Myla Nauman, et al. v. Abbott Laboratories, et al., No. 10-2272, 7th Cir.; 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 2086).<br />
<a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&#038;keyenum=25271&#038;keytnum=0&#038;searchtype=get&#038;search=2012-649%20Mealey%27s%20Daily%20News%20Update%203&#038;view=full&#038;ORIGINATION_CODE=00144 target=_blank">LexisNexis® Mealey&#8217;s™ Daily Legal News</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.jmalawyers.com/7th-circuit-rules-for-abbott-on-former-employees-erisa-interference-claims/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Louisiana Supreme Court Grants Appeal Of Medical Malpractice Lawsuit</title>
		<link>http://www.jmalawyers.com/louisiana-supreme-court-grants-appeal-of-medical-malpractice-lawsuit</link>
		<comments>http://www.jmalawyers.com/louisiana-supreme-court-grants-appeal-of-medical-malpractice-lawsuit#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 13 Feb 2012 17:41:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>spockyboy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Legal News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Appeal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Grants]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Lawsuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Louisiana]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Malpractice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Medical]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.jmalawyers.com/louisiana-supreme-court-grants-appeal-of-medical-malpractice-lawsuit</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[NEW ORLEANS &#8211; The Louisiana Supreme Court on Feb. 3 agreed to hear an insurer&#8217;s appeal of an appeals court&#8217;s finding that a lower court abused its discretion in denying claimants&#8217; motion for a new trial in their medical malpractice lawsuit against the insurer and its doctor insured (Alfred Dupree, et al. v. Louisiana Medical [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>NEW ORLEANS &#8211; The Louisiana Supreme Court on Feb. 3 agreed to hear an insurer&#8217;s appeal of an appeals court&#8217;s finding that a lower court abused its discretion in denying claimants&#8217; motion for a new trial in their medical malpractice lawsuit against the insurer and its doctor insured (Alfred Dupree, et al. v. Louisiana Medical Mutual Ins. Co., et al., No. 2011-C-2453, La. Sup.).<br />
<a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&#038;keyenum=25271&#038;keytnum=0&#038;searchtype=get&#038;search=2012-649%20Mealey%27s%20Daily%20News%20Update%202&#038;view=full&#038;ORIGINATION_CODE=00144 target=_blank">LexisNexis® Mealey&#8217;s™ Daily Legal News</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.jmalawyers.com/louisiana-supreme-court-grants-appeal-of-medical-malpractice-lawsuit/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Appeals Panel Upholds Use Of Pro-Rata Approach In Lead Coverage Suit</title>
		<link>http://www.jmalawyers.com/appeals-panel-upholds-use-of-pro-rata-approach-in-lead-coverage-suit</link>
		<comments>http://www.jmalawyers.com/appeals-panel-upholds-use-of-pro-rata-approach-in-lead-coverage-suit#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 17:02:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>spockyboy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Legal News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Approach]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Coverage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Lead]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Panel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ProRata]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Suit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Upholds]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.jmalawyers.com/appeals-panel-upholds-use-of-pro-rata-approach-in-lead-coverage-suit</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[BALTIMORE &#8211; An insurer is liable for less than 45 percent of a jury verdict entered in favor of a tenant who sustained injuries as a result of lead paint in the insured&#8217;s property because the insurer can be liable only for the time that it insured the property owner, the Fourth Circuit U.S. Court [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>BALTIMORE &#8211; An insurer is liable for less than 45 percent of a jury verdict entered in favor of a tenant who sustained injuries as a result of lead paint in the insured&#8217;s property because the insurer can be liable only for the time that it insured the property owner, the Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals said Feb. 3 (Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty Insurance Co. v. Lakia Roberts et al., No. 10-1987, 4th Cir.; 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 2084).<br />
<a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&#038;keyenum=25271&#038;keytnum=0&#038;searchtype=get&#038;search=2012-649%20Mealey%27s%20Daily%20News%20Update%201&#038;view=full&#038;ORIGINATION_CODE=00144 target=_blank">LexisNexis® Mealey&#8217;s™ Daily Legal News</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.jmalawyers.com/appeals-panel-upholds-use-of-pro-rata-approach-in-lead-coverage-suit/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Please Note: this RSS feed is changing at 8:30am EST, on February 8, 2012</title>
		<link>http://www.jmalawyers.com/please-note-this-rss-feed-is-changing-at-830am-est-on-february-8-2012</link>
		<comments>http://www.jmalawyers.com/please-note-this-rss-feed-is-changing-at-830am-est-on-february-8-2012#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 Feb 2012 17:35:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>spockyboy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Legal News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2012]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[830am]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[changing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[February]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[feed]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Note]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Please]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[this]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.jmalawyers.com/please-note-this-rss-feed-is-changing-at-830am-est-on-february-8-2012</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Mealey&#8217;s is changing the name of this RSS feed on February 8, 2012 to &#8216;Mealey&#8217;s Daily News Service&#8217;. The feed URL to subscribe to will also be changing to &#8216;http://lexisnexis.com/mealeys/rss/mealeysdailynews.xml&#8217;. Please use this URL to re-subscribe to the feed, or you can visit &#8216;http://www.lexisnexis.com/mealeys/RSSFeeds.aspx&#8217; after 8:30am EST, on February 8, 2012 where there will be [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Mealey&#8217;s is changing the name of this RSS feed on February 8, 2012 to &#8216;Mealey&#8217;s Daily News Service&#8217;. The feed URL to subscribe to will also be changing to &#8216;http://lexisnexis.com/mealeys/rss/mealeysdailynews.xml&#8217;. Please use this URL to re-subscribe to the feed, or you can visit &#8216;http://www.lexisnexis.com/mealeys/RSSFeeds.aspx&#8217; after 8:30am EST, on February 8, 2012 where there will be a link to the new RSS feed. Thank you.</p>
<p><a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.lexisnexis.com/mealeys/RSSFeeds.aspx">LexisNexis® Mealey&#8217;s™ Daily Legal News</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.jmalawyers.com/please-note-this-rss-feed-is-changing-at-830am-est-on-february-8-2012/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>JPMorgan Agrees To Pay Nearly $ 700M To Settle Claims With Lehman Brothers</title>
		<link>http://www.jmalawyers.com/jpmorgan-agrees-to-pay-nearly-700m-to-settle-claims-with-lehman-brothers</link>
		<comments>http://www.jmalawyers.com/jpmorgan-agrees-to-pay-nearly-700m-to-settle-claims-with-lehman-brothers#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 04 Feb 2012 18:26:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>spockyboy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Legal News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[700M]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Agrees]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Brothers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Claims]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[JPMorgan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Lehman]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nearly]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Settle]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.jmalawyers.com/jpmorgan-agrees-to-pay-nearly-700m-to-settle-claims-with-lehman-brothers</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[NEW YORK &#8211; JPMorgan Chase Bank NA on Feb. 1 agreed to pay nearly $ 700 million to bankrupt Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. (LBHI) that JPMorgan had been previously paid for &#8220;purportedly secured claims against LBHI on the basis that, as &#8216;affiliates&#8217; of JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., their claims were guaranteed by LBHI&#8221; under a [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>NEW YORK &#8211; JPMorgan Chase Bank NA on Feb. 1 agreed to pay nearly $   700 million to bankrupt Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. (LBHI) that JPMorgan had been previously paid for &#8220;purportedly secured claims against LBHI on the basis that, as &#8216;affiliates&#8217; of JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., their claims were guaranteed by LBHI&#8221; under a September 2011 guaranty and secured by collateral posted by LBHI &#8220;in connection therewith,&#8221; according to a motion for approval of settlement filed in New York federal bankruptcy court (In re Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., et al., No. 08-13555, Chapter 11, S.D. N.Y. Bkcy.).<br />
<a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&#038;keyenum=25271&#038;keytnum=0&#038;searchtype=get&#038;search=2012-647%20Mealey%27s%20Daily%20News%20Update%201&#038;view=full&#038;ORIGINATION_CODE=00144 target=_blank">LexisNexis® Mealey&#8217;s™ Daily Legal News</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.jmalawyers.com/jpmorgan-agrees-to-pay-nearly-700m-to-settle-claims-with-lehman-brothers/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Jury: Insured Incurred $ 4M In Covered Hurricane Wilma Damages Under Excess Policy</title>
		<link>http://www.jmalawyers.com/jury-insured-incurred-4m-in-covered-hurricane-wilma-damages-under-excess-policy</link>
		<comments>http://www.jmalawyers.com/jury-insured-incurred-4m-in-covered-hurricane-wilma-damages-under-excess-policy#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 01 Feb 2012 18:35:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>spockyboy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Legal News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Covered]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Damages]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Excess]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hurricane]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Incurred]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Insured]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jury]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Under]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wilma]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.jmalawyers.com/jury-insured-incurred-4m-in-covered-hurricane-wilma-damages-under-excess-policy</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. &#8211; A jury in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on Jan. 30 found that a Florida property manager insured incurred $ 4 million in covered losses from Hurricane Wilma, rendering a verdict against the excess insurer following a 10-day trial (Banta Properties Inc. v. Arch Specialty Insurance [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. &#8211; A jury in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on Jan. 30 found that a Florida property manager insured incurred $   4 million in covered losses from Hurricane Wilma, rendering a verdict against the excess insurer following a 10-day trial (Banta Properties Inc. v. Arch Specialty Insurance Company, No.10-61485, S.D. Fla.).<br />
<a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&#038;keyenum=25271&#038;keytnum=0&#038;searchtype=get&#038;search=2012-645%20Mealey%27s%20Daily%20News%20Update%201&#038;view=full&#038;ORIGINATION_CODE=00144 target=_blank">LexisNexis® Mealey&#8217;s™ Daily Legal News</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.jmalawyers.com/jury-insured-incurred-4m-in-covered-hurricane-wilma-damages-under-excess-policy/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>$ 9.35B Judgment Against Al Qaeda In Favor Of Insurers Certified As Final</title>
		<link>http://www.jmalawyers.com/9-35b-judgment-against-al-qaeda-in-favor-of-insurers-certified-as-final</link>
		<comments>http://www.jmalawyers.com/9-35b-judgment-against-al-qaeda-in-favor-of-insurers-certified-as-final#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 29 Jan 2012 19:12:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>spockyboy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Legal News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[9.35B]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Against]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Certified]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Favor]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Final]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Insurers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judgment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Qaeda]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.jmalawyers.com/9-35b-judgment-against-al-qaeda-in-favor-of-insurers-certified-as-final</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[NEW YORK &#8211; A New York federal judge on Jan. 25 entered a final judgment of $ 9,351,247,965.99 against Al Qaeda and in favor of 23 insurers after adopting a magistrate judge&#8217;s finding that the insurers are entitled to treble damages under the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA) for any claims that they reasonably paid to insureds [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>NEW YORK &#8211; A New York federal judge on Jan. 25 entered a final judgment of $   9,351,247,965.99 against Al Qaeda and in favor of 23 insurers after adopting a magistrate judge&#8217;s finding that the insurers are entitled to treble damages under the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA) for any claims that they reasonably paid to insureds who suffered business and property damage as a result of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks (In Re: Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001, No. 03 MDL 1570 [GBD] [FM], S.D. N.Y.).<br />
<a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&#038;keyenum=25271&#038;keytnum=0&#038;searchtype=get&#038;search=2012-642%20Mealey%27s%20Daily%20News%20Update%201&#038;view=full&#038;ORIGINATION_CODE=00144 target=_blank">LexisNexis® Mealey&#8217;s™ Daily Legal News</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.jmalawyers.com/9-35b-judgment-against-al-qaeda-in-favor-of-insurers-certified-as-final/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>9th Circuit Says Insurers Have Standing To Object To Thorpe&#8217;s Confirmed Plan</title>
		<link>http://www.jmalawyers.com/9th-circuit-says-insurers-have-standing-to-object-to-thorpes-confirmed-plan</link>
		<comments>http://www.jmalawyers.com/9th-circuit-says-insurers-have-standing-to-object-to-thorpes-confirmed-plan#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 26 Jan 2012 20:00:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>spockyboy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Legal News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Confirmed]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Insurers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Object]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Plan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Says]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Standing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Thorpe's]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.jmalawyers.com/9th-circuit-says-insurers-have-standing-to-object-to-thorpes-confirmed-plan</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[SAN FRANCISCO &#8211; Because Thorpe Insulation Co.&#8217;s Chapter 11 plan of reorganization could harm insurance companies, the plan is not &#8220;insurance neutral&#8221; and, therefore, the insurers have standing to object to it, the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals held Jan. 24 in reversing approval of the plan and remanding the case so the insurers&#8217; [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>SAN FRANCISCO &#8211; Because Thorpe Insulation Co.&#8217;s Chapter 11 plan of reorganization could harm insurance companies, the plan is not &#8220;insurance neutral&#8221; and, therefore, the insurers have standing to object to it, the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals held Jan. 24 in reversing approval of the plan and remanding the case so the insurers&#8217; arguments can be heard (Motor Vehicle Casualty Company, et al. v. Thorpe Insulation Company, et al.[In The Matter of Thorpe Insulation Company] and National Fire Insurance Company of Hartford, et al. v. Thorpe Insulation Company, et al. [In the Matter of Thorpe Insulation Company], Nos. 10-56543 and 10-56622, 9th Cir.; 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 1272).<br />
<a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&#038;keyenum=25271&#038;keytnum=0&#038;searchtype=get&#038;search=2012-641%20Mealey%27s%20Daily%20News%20Update%201&#038;view=full&#038;ORIGINATION_CODE=00144 target=_blank">LexisNexis® Mealey&#8217;s™ Daily Legal News</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.jmalawyers.com/9th-circuit-says-insurers-have-standing-to-object-to-thorpes-confirmed-plan/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

