George Bundy Smith

December 19, 2014 | New York Law Journal

In their Commercial Division Update column, George Bundy Smith and Thomas Hall discuss the so-called “discount for lack of marketability” — when New York courts will discount the value of minority shares to account for the lack of marketability inherent in the sale of a close corporation— and review recent Commercial Division cases that refine its application.

By George Bundy Smith and Thomas J. Hall

10 minute read

October 20, 2014 | Commercial Litigation Insider

George Bundy Smith and Thomas Hall write: Recent Commercial Division decisions make clear that the new standard set forth under Daimler v. Bauman has reduced the reach of New York courts' general jurisdiction over non-domiciliary corporations by providing only a 'limited set of affiliations' that can now confer general jurisdiction.

By George Bundy Smith and Thomas J. Hall

11 minute read

October 17, 2014 | New York Law Journal

In their Commercial Division Update, George Bundy Smith and Thomas J. Hall review recent decisions that make it clear that the new standard set by the U.S. Supreme Court in 'Daimler v. Bauman' has reduced the reach of New York courts' general jurisdiction over non-domiciliary corporations by providing only a "limited set of affiliations" that can now confer general jurisdiction.

By George Bundy Smith and Thomas J. Hall

11 minute read

August 15, 2014 | New York Law Journal

In their Commercial Division Update, George Bundy Smith and Thomas J. Hall review recent decisions that make it clear that abuse of the corporate form is not enough to impose a corporation's liabilities on its shareholders. A party seeking to pierce the corporate veil needs to prove a wrong committed against it, and must also establish a causal connection between the abuse of the corporate form and the wrongful conduct for which relief is sought.

By George Bundy Smith and Thomas J. Hall

11 minute read

June 24, 2014 | Commercial Litigation Insider

In their Commercial Division Update for the New York Law Journal, George Bundy Smith and Thomas J. Hall write: As the New York Court of Appeals has directed, where clauses in a contract appear in conflict, "every attempt should be made to harmonize the two provisions using common-law tools of contract interpretation." We examine some of those tools used by the Commercial Division and other courts in resolving such conflicts.

By George Bundy Smith and Thomas J. Hall

11 minute read

June 20, 2014 | New York Law Journal

In their Commercial Division Update, George Bundy Smith and Thomas J. Hall write: As the New York Court of Appeals has directed, where clauses in a contract appear in conflict, "every attempt should be made to harmonize the two provisions using common-law tools of contract interpretation." We examine some of those tools used by the Commercial Division and other courts in resolving such conflicts.

By George Bundy Smith and Thomas J. Hall

11 minute read

April 22, 2014 | Commercial Litigation Insider

In their Commercial Division Update for the New York Law Journal, George Bundy Smith, an arbitrator and mediator with JAMS, and Thomas J. Hall, a partner at Chadbourne & Parke, write: Recent cases demonstrate that the Appellate Departments have developed somewhat antithetical, yet equally supported, views on how circumstances surrounding a contract's formation can affect a party's status as an intended beneficiary of a contract.

By George Bundy Smith and Thomas J. Hall

11 minute read

April 18, 2014 | New York Law Journal

In their Commercial Division Update, George Bundy Smith, an arbitrator and mediator with JAMS, and Thomas J. Hall, a partner at Chadbourne & Parke, write: Recent cases demonstrate that the Appellate Departments have developed somewhat antithetical, yet equally supported, views on how circumstances surrounding a contract's formation can affect a party's status as an intended beneficiary of a contract.

By George Bundy Smith and Thomas J. Hall

11 minute read

February 24, 2014 | Commercial Litigation Insider

In their Commercial Division Update for the New York Law Journal, George Bundy Smith, an arbitrator and mediator with JAMS, and Thomas J. Hall, a partner at Chadbourne & Parke, write: The application of equitable requirements to petitions for orders of attachment in aid of arbitration, as recent trial courts have done, raises the issue of whether a showing of irreparable harm is inconsistent with the dictates of CPLR 7502(c) that the "rendered ineffectual" test is the sole substantive ground for such relief.

By George Bundy Smith and Thomas J. Hall

15 minute read

February 21, 2014 | New York Law Journal

In their Commercial Division Update, George Bundy Smith, an arbitrator and mediator with JAMS, and Thomas J. Hall, a partner at Chadbourne & Parke, write: The application of equitable requirements to petitions for orders of attachment in aid of arbitration, as recent trial courts have done, raises the issue of whether a showing of irreparable harm is inconsistent with the dictates of CPLR 7502(c) that the "rendered ineffectual" test is the sole substantive ground for such relief.

By George Bundy Smith and Thomas J. Hall

15 minute read