​

Sometimes, but not automatically. A U.S. court may have more power to require a deposition from an Italian executive if the executive is a party, an officer or managing agent of a party, or otherwise within the court’s jurisdiction. If the executive is a nonparty located in Italy, U.S. subpoena power is usually much more limited, and the deposition may need to proceed by agreement, remote examination, letters of request, or Hague Evidence Convention procedures. The answer dep

Sometimes, but not directly. When an appeal has been docketed and is pending, the trial court may lack authority to grant certain relief because jurisdiction over the appealed issues has shifted to the appellate court. In federal court, Rule 62.1 gives the district court a way to say whether it would grant relief, deny relief, defer the issue, or find that the motion raises a substantial issue, while Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 12.1 allows the court of appeals to deci

An Italian manufacturer may be able to sue a nonpaying U.S. distributor in state court, federal court, arbitration, or another contractually selected forum, depending on the distribution agreement, forum clause, payment terms, jurisdictional facts, and where the distributor or assets are located. The manufacturer may be able to recover unpaid invoices, interest, contract damages, attorneys’ fees if authorized, resale losses, the price of accepted goods, and sometimes emergenc

Yes, a developer may be able to seek emergency relief if a construction lender wrongfully stops funding draws and the project faces immediate harm. But courts are cautious about ordering a lender to advance money before final judgment, especially if the requested injunction would compel affirmative performance of a loan agreement. The strongest cases usually involve clear loan-document rights, satisfied draw conditions, wrongful default assertions, lien or foreclosure pressur

Defense control depends on the policy language, the reservation-of-rights posture, the identity of each insured, and whether conflicts exist between the company, individual defendants, and insurer. An insurer may have the contractual right to appoint counsel and control defense strategy in some cases, but that authority is not unlimited. When coverage issues, settlement positions, personal exposure, indemnification rights, or conflicting defenses divide the parties, the compa

Yes, a court can often decide which group lawfully controls an organization when the dispute turns on neutral legal questions such as bylaws, articles, meeting notice, quorum, voting rights, removal procedures, written consents, corporate records, or statutory authority. But courts may be limited if the dispute requires deciding internal religious doctrine, political questions, or nonjusticiable association issues. In urgent cases, a court may also enter temporary orders pres

Sometimes. An internal corporate investigation may be protected by attorney-client privilege when it is conducted for the purpose of obtaining or providing legal advice, kept confidential, and structured so employees understand that counsel represents the company, not them personally. But privilege can be lost or limited if the investigation is primarily business, compliance, public-relations, or operational in nature, or if the company later discloses the findings too broadl

Yes, U.S. discovery can sometimes require production of business data stored in another country. The critical question is usually not where the data sits, but whether the U.S. party has possession, custody, or control over it. Foreign privacy laws, blocking statutes, GDPR obligations, and Hague Evidence Convention procedures may limit, shape, or delay production, but they do not automatically defeat U.S. discovery. The answer depends on… Whether the party has possession, cust

A company or executive should act quickly, put the insurer’s position in writing, preserve the settlement opportunity, and build a record showing why the proposed settlement is reasonable. If the insurer controls settlement or has consent rights, refusal to approve a reasonable resolution can create coverage, bad-faith, excess-exposure, and appellate-preservation issues. The right response depends on the policy language, the insurer’s coverage position, the litigation posture

Yes, a proposed foreclosure sale of a founder’s LLC or partnership interest can sometimes be stopped, delayed, or limited through emergency litigation. But a court will usually need a concrete reason: defective default notice, disputed collateral rights, commercially unreasonable sale procedures, transfer restrictions, inadequate valuation, irreparable loss of control, or another defect that cannot be fixed after the sale. The analysis is different from ordinary real-estate f

Sometimes the donor can enforce the restriction, but not always alone and not in every posture. Restricted-gift disputes usually turn on the written gift instrument, the nonprofit’s governing documents, state charitable-trust law, UPMIFA, Attorney General authority, and whether the person seeking relief has standing. If the nonprofit used restricted funds for a different purpose, the remedy may include an accounting, injunction, restoration of funds, court-approved modificati

Sometimes, but refusal can be risky. A private fund investor may have grounds to object to an unexpected capital call if the call exceeds the fund documents, violates notice requirements, conflicts with a side letter, was made for an improper purpose, treats investors unfairly, or rests on misleading disclosures. But if the limited partnership agreement, operating agreement, subscription documents, and side letters authorize the call, failure to fund may trigger serious defau

Yes, sometimes. A borrower may be able to seek emergency relief if a lender’s cash sweep, account setoff, or control-account action violated the loan documents, exceeded the lender’s collateral rights, ignored required notice or cure rights, froze exempt or non-collateral funds, or threatens immediate business collapse. But if the loan documents clearly authorize the sweep after default, and the lender acted within its security agreement and applicable law, emergency relief m

Yes, sometimes. Members, directors, donors, or state charity regulators may be able to challenge a nonprofit’s sale of a major asset if the transaction violates the nonprofit’s governing documents, member-approval rights, fiduciary duties, donor restrictions, charitable-trust obligations, statutory notice requirements, or conflict-of-interest rules. But not every disagreement with a nonprofit board’s business judgment gives someone standing to stop the sale. The answer depend

Yes, a no-reliance clause can sometimes defeat a post-acquisition fraud claim, especially when sophisticated parties agreed that the buyer was not relying on extra-contractual statements outside the purchase agreement. But the clause does not automatically eliminate every fraud theory. The result depends on the exact contract language, the governing law, the alleged misrepresentation, the diligence record, and whether the fraud claim is based on written representations inside

If a buyer refuses to pay an earnout after a company sale, the seller may have claims for breach of contract, declaratory relief, accounting, specific performance of information rights, fraud or misrepresentation, breach of the implied covenant, or other business litigation remedies. The next step depends on the purchase agreement, how the earnout is calculated, whether the buyer manipulated post-closing performance, and what dispute-resolution process the contract requires.

Yes. A party can often object to a forensic inspection of a phone, email account, computer, cloud storage account, or messaging platform if the request is overbroad, disproportionate, invasive, privileged, or unsupported by a specific need. Courts may allow targeted ESI discovery, but direct access to a personal device or account is usually more intrusive than ordinary document production and should be carefully limited. The answer depends on… Whether the request seeks target

Yes, a court order requiring production of tax returns, bank records, personal financial statements, or net-worth information can often be limited, protected, stayed, or reviewed, depending on the forum and the type of order. These records are sensitive, and courts may require a focused showing of relevance, proportionality, need, and privacy protection before allowing broad financial discovery. But timing is critical because once private financial records are produced, confi

An injunction should generally preserve rights while the case is litigated, not give one side the final result before trial. The difficult question is whether the order truly maintains the status quo or effectively grants the plaintiff the same relief it hopes to win at final judgment. Courts look at the practical effect of the order, not just the label used in the motion or proposed order. The answer depends on… What the status quo actually was before the dispute escalated W

In federal court, Rule 7.1 may require a company to disclose more than a simple corporate name. A nongovernmental corporation must identify any parent corporation and any publicly held corporation that owns 10% or more of its stock, and in diversity cases, parties must disclose the citizenship of every individual or entity whose citizenship is attributed to them. For LLCs, partnerships, and other noncorporate entities, that can require tracing ownership through each layer unt