Suits and Litigation (Civil)

Subterms

    More stories

    • 88 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      TGI Fridays Files for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy

      by

      The company filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection on Saturday but said its restaurants would remain open while it works on a “restructuring process.”TGI Fridays Inc., the casual American dining chain that for more than half a century served customers happy-hour deals, hamburgers and comfort-food appetizers like mozzarella sticks and loaded potato skins, filed for bankruptcy protection on Saturday.The Dallas-based company filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the Northern District of Texas to begin a “restructuring process” to ensure the “long-term viability of the brand,” according to a company statement.The move comes as the company struggles with financial challenges brought, in part, by the Covid-19 pandemic, Rohit Manocha, the executive chairman of TGI Fridays Inc., said in the statement.All 39 restaurants in the United States that the company owns and operates will remain open. Locations owned by 56 independent franchisees are not included in the bankruptcy filing, the company said.The company estimated both its assets and its liabilities are between $100 million and $500 million, according to court filings.TGI Fridays, which stands for Thank God It’s Friday, opened in 1965 in Manhattan. It became popular for creating an environment of flirtation at its happy hours, which catered to single people, and for its large portions.In 2007, the company changed its menu and began offering smaller portions for lower prices, a move that proved popular with customers.The pandemic, though, proved to be a challenge for restaurant chains like TGI Fridays that have large real estate footprints. The chain has more than 461 restaurants in 41 countries. Since the pandemic, customers’ appetites have shifted to faster, cheaper food.In October, Bloomberg reported that TGI Fridays Inc. was seeking financing to prepare for a potential bankruptcy filing.TGI Fridays, which dropped the apostrophe in its logo in 2013, is privately owned by TriArtisan Capital Advisors, a New York-based private equity firm. TriArtisan did not immediately respond on Saturday to an email seeking additional comment.The restaurant chain was a cultural touchstone of American casual dining for decades.Famous for its brightly colored beverages, TGI Fridays said its bartenders trained the actor Tom Cruise to make drinks for the 1988 film “Cocktail.” It also takes credit for having popularized the Long Island Iced Tea.Fridays, as the chain is sometimes called, is not the only casual sit-down restaurant chain that has struggled recently.Buca di Beppo, an Italian casual dining chain with more than 80 locations, many in California, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in August. Red Lobster filed for bankruptcy in May and exited Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in September, The Associated Press reported. More

    • 138 Shares128 Views

      in Elections

      Secret Files in Election Case Show How Judges Limited Trump’s Privilege

      by

      The partly unsealed rulings, orders and transcripts open a window on a momentous battle over grand jury testimony that played out in secret, creating important precedents about executive privilege.Court documents unsealed on Monday shed new light on a legal battle over which of former President Donald J. Trump’s White House aides had to testify before a grand jury in Washington that charged him with plotting to overturn the 2020 election, showing how judges carved out limits on executive privilege.The trove — including motions, judicial orders and transcripts of hearings in Federal District Court in Washington — did not reveal significant new details about Mr. Trump’s efforts to cling to power. But it did open a window on important questions of presidential power and revealed how judges grew frustrated with Mr. Trump’s longstanding strategy of seeking to delay accountability for his attempts to overturn his defeat to Joseph R. Biden Jr.The documents also created important — if not binding — precedents about the scope of executive privilege that could influence criminal investigations in which a current or former president instructs subordinates not to testify before a grand jury based on his constitutional authority to keep certain internal executive branch communications secret.Starting in the summer of 2022, and continuing with the appointment of Jack Smith as special counsel later that year, the Justice Department undertook a wide-ranging and extraordinary effort to compel grand jury testimony from several close aides to Mr. Trump. Prosecutors believed the aides had critical information about the former president’s attempts to overturn the results of the election.The effort, which ended in the spring of the following year, was largely intended to obtain firsthand accounts from key figures who had used claims of executive privilege and other legal protections to avoid testifying to investigators on the House committee that examined the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol and the events leading up to it.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 150 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Late Lawsuit Could Shape Political Ad Wars in Final Days of Campaign

      by

      House Democrats are suing to stop Republicans from using a legal loophole to bolster their Senate candidates.A legal battle is playing out in D.C. federal court that could determine how much money the Democratic and Republican Parties can pump into advertising in pivotal congressional races in the final week of the 2024 campaign and beyond.At issue is what Democrats say is a potentially illegal political advertising strategy that Republicans have used in recent weeks to try to overcome a significant fund-raising deficit in states with critical Senate races, such as Arizona and Pennsylvania.With less than two weeks until Election Day, House Democrats’ campaign arm has sued the Federal Election Commission for failing to stop the Republicans and are seeking a ruling to either bar the practice or clear the way to use it themselves.A hearing on the matter is set for Monday, and both parties expect a ruling as soon as Tuesday, either blocking or allowing the practice in the critical last stretch before Election Day.Here’s what to know:Democrats have been dominating Republicans in fund-raising in key Senate races.Continuing a recent trend, Democratic Senate candidates have been trouncing their Republican rivals in fund-raising battles in pivotal races across the country.In Ohio, Senator Sherrod Brown has raised about four times as much money as his Republican challenger, Bernie Moreno. In Montana, Senator Jon Tester has raised about three times as much as Tim Sheehy. And in Arizona, Representative Ruben Gallego has raised more than twice as much as Kari Lake.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 125 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Lawyers Should Not Assist Trump in a Potential Power Grab

      by

      As the presidential campaign begins its final sprint, Donald Trump has made crystal clear how he will respond if he loses. He will refuse to accept the results; he will make baseless claims of voter fraud; and he will turn, with even more ferocity than he did in 2020, to the courts to save him.Mr. Trump has made clear that he views any election he loses — no matter how close or fair — as by definition illegitimate. The question then is whether there will be lawyers willing to cloak this insistence in the language of legal reasoning and therefore to assist him in litigating his way back to the White House.Republican lawyers have already unleashed lawsuits ahead of Election Day. These legal partisans have pursued their efforts across the country but have concentrated on swing states and key counties. The moves are clearly intended to lay the groundwork for Mr. Trump’s post-election efforts in states where the margins of victory are close.Such post-election efforts will be credible only if credible attorneys sign on to mount them. So it is critical that lawyers of conscience refuse to assist in those endeavors. As Mr. Trump’s rhetoric grows ever more vengeful and openly authoritarian, a great deal turns on the willingness of members of the legal profession to make common cause with him.At least since 2000, every close presidential election has involved recounts or litigation. Both sides lawyer up, and a high-stakes game of inches ensues.Although the lawyers engaged in those efforts are playing hardball, their work is predicated on a shared set of premises: In elections, the candidate who gets the most votes prevails (whether that means winning state or federal office or winning a state’s electoral votes). And in a close election, skilled lawyers will seek to develop legal arguments that determine which votes count, and therefore who emerges as the winner.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 150 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Texas Man Drops Suit Against Women Who Helped Ex-Wife Get Abortion Pills

      by

      The suit had accused the three women of wrongful death. It was part of a heated battle over the use of such pills in states with abortion bans.A Texas man has dropped his lawsuit against three women who helped his ex-wife obtain abortion pills, a case widely seen as designed to discourage private citizens from aiding women in using the pills in states where abortion is all but banned.The move on Thursday by the plaintiff, Marcus Silva, was part of a settlement with the defendants, Jackie Noyola, Amy Carpenter and Aracely Garcia. The exact details of the settlement were not made public, but they did not involve any financial terms, according to lawyers for both sides. Ms. Noyola and Ms. Carpenter also dropped counterclaims they had filed.Mr. Silva filed his suit shortly after the Supreme Court’s reversal of Roe v. Wade and one year after Texas essentially banned most abortions with a law that also deputized private individuals to sue anyone who “aids or abets” a woman seeking an abortion.One of Mr. Silva’s lawyers is Jonathan Mitchell, a former solicitor general of Texas. The architect of the state abortion ban, he is considered a pioneer in using private lawsuits to deter the procedure. Abortion rights groups accuse him of filing the suits to attract publicity and intimidate people.Elizabeth Myers, a lawyer for Ms. Noyola and Ms. Carpenter, said the fact that Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Silva did not want to move forward with the case was “very telling.”“They live on the creation of fear,” she said. “They need the fear to ultimately lead to something real and it didn’t.” We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 150 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      F.A.A. Clears the Way for SpaceX to Hold Starship Launch on Sunday

      by

      The agency said the company had agreed to study the environmental impact of its launches in South Texas and ways to mitigate harm to wildlife.The Federal Aviation Administration issued a new license on Saturday allowing Elon Musk’s SpaceX company to launch its Starship rocket again from South Texas, and it included new requirements to limit the harm to birds’ nests and other wildlife in an adjacent state park and National Wildlife Refuge.The action by the F.A.A., which came after weeks of pressure by Mr. Musk on the agency to speed up its latest review, allows Mr. Musk to go ahead with his next test of Starship, with a launch now set to take place as early as 8 a.m. Eastern time on Sunday.So far, SpaceX has been required to obtain a license for each launch. With the latest license, the F.A.A. is allowing the company to launch more than once, unless it modifies its procedures.Starship, the largest rocket ever built, has not yet carried any humans into space, as its reliability is still being assessed. But this is the spaceship that Mr. Musk is under contract to use to land NASA astronauts on the moon — and that he hopes to someday use to take humans to Mars.But as prototypes and full-scale versions of the rocket have been tested at the company’s launch site at the edge of the Gulf of Mexico near the Mexican border in South Texas, there has been widespread evidence of environmental consequences to the region, as detailed in a New York Times investigation in July.The report in The Times examined, in part, damage that a Starship launch in June caused to the fragile migratory bird habitat surrounding the launch site, including destroying eggs in nearby nests.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 88 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Zantac’s Developer Settles Lawsuits Claiming Cancer Link

      by

      GSK, which developed and sold versions of the now-discontinued blockbuster heartburn drug, agreed to pay up to $2.2 billion.The British drug maker GSK said on Wednesday that it would pay up to $2.2 billion to settle most of the lawsuits filed against it by people who claim that they developed cancer after taking a now-discontinued blockbuster heartburn drug commonly known by the brand name Zantac.GSK, which developed the drug decades ago and sold a version of it until 2017, did not admit liability in settling the cases. The evidence is mixed on whether the drug elevates the risk of cancer, but the concern that the drug might was sufficient to get it removed from the market.An over-the-counter medication sold today as Zantac 360 by Sanofi has a different active ingredient from the withdrawn versions of Zantac and has not raised questions about a cancer link.In 2019, the Food and Drug Administration said it had detected low levels of a cancer-causing contaminant known as NDMA in samples of Zantac, which at that time was widely sold by prescription and over the counter. Manufacturers soon voluntarily withdrew their versions of the drug, and pharmacies pulled the products from their shelves.The next year, the F.D.A. recommended that the drug no longer be sold or used, saying that when stored for long periods its active ingredient can degrade and cause a buildup of NDMA, creating a danger of cancer.Other research has found that Zantac users were no more likely to develop cancer than people who took other drugs that suppress the production of stomach acid.Tens of thousands of Zantac users have filed product liability lawsuits against GSK and other makers of versions of Zantac. This year, juries in Illinois that heard the first few such cases sided with the manufacturers or failed to reach a verdict.Several other pharmaceutical companies that previously sold versions of the drug, including Sanofi and Pfizer, reached similar settlements this year. Boehringer Ingelheim, a former manufacturer that has not settled, is in court in California this week defending itself in a jury trial brought by a man who claims that over-the-counter Zantac caused his bladder cancer.GSK’s settlement on Wednesday will resolve claims by about 80,000 plaintiffs in the United States. The company said it had also agreed to pay $70 million to settle a whistle-blower complaint by an independent laboratory, Valisure, whose testing first raised the alarm about a link between Zantac and cancer. In that lawsuit, Valisure accused GSK of knowing that the drug elevates cancer risk and of keeping quiet about it.The suit was unsealed this year after the Justice Department declined to either join the suit or recommend that it be dismissed. The company denies Valisure’s allegations. More

    • 113 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      Garth Brooks Names Woman Who Accused Him of Rape

      by

      In a court filing, lawyers for the country superstar portrayed him as “the victim of a shakedown” and asked for compensatory and punitive damages.Garth Brooks, the country superstar, has named the woman who, as Jane Roe, accused him of rape and sexual assault in a bombshell lawsuit last week.In a court filing in Mississippi on Tuesday, lawyers for Mr. Brooks portrayed the star as “the victim of a shakedown” and said the woman’s lawyers had “flouted” the authority of a judge in a related case.Litigation over the woman’s accusations began last month with a lawsuit that was filed anonymously — as John Doe v. Jane Roe — in federal court in Mississippi. The plaintiff, identified only as “a celebrity and public figure who resides in Tennessee,” said that lawyers for a woman had approached him in July with what he described as false allegations of sexual assault, and that they would sue Mr. Brooks unless he gave the woman “a multimillion-dollar payment.” The man asked the Mississippi judge to preserve the parties’ anonymity and declare that the woman’s accusations were false.In a response, lawyers for the woman said they intended to sue the man in California, saying that “Ms. Roe respectfully requests that she may commence her California action as she intended to do, and use Mr. Doe’s name, absent objection from this Honorable Court.”The court did not act, and two days later the woman filed her lawsuit in Los Angeles Superior Court, naming Mr. Brooks but not herself. The suit accused Mr. Brooks of raping her in a Los Angeles hotel room in 2019, and of subjecting her to repeated unwanted sexual advances for about two years. The woman described herself as a hair and makeup stylist who had worked with Mr. Brooks’s wife, the country singer Trisha Yearwood, since 1999, and had begun working regularly for Mr. Brooks in 2017.The suit drew wide coverage in the news media, and its portrayal of Mr. Brooks ran counter to the positive public image he had cultivated for decades.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More