<?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"
	>

<channel>
	<title>MGLAW</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.mglaw.net/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.mglaw.net</link>
	<description>MGLAW is all about business. Our boutique practice focuses on the areas of Business Litigation, Business Bankruptcy, and Business Planning.</description>
	<pubDate>Sun, 24 Oct 2151 21:18:11 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3</generator>
	<language>en</language>
			<item>
		<title>Futility of Demand on Board of Directors in Derivative Suit</title>
		<link>http://www.mglaw.net/2010/07/futility-of-demand-on-board-of-directors-in-derivative-suit/</link>
		<comments>http://www.mglaw.net/2010/07/futility-of-demand-on-board-of-directors-in-derivative-suit/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 30 Jul 2010 15:07:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Cheyanne Mahoney</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Blog]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[business litigation]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[business organizations]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mglaw.net/?p=2295</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee recently rejected an argument that might have given shareholders an end run around the demand requirements for derivative suits.  See Lay v. Burley Stabilization Corp, 2010 WL 2639931 (E.D. Tenn. Jun. 28, 2010).  In Tennessee, plaintiffs in a derivative action must &#8220;allege with [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.mglaw.net/2010/07/futility-of-demand-on-board-of-directors-in-derivative-suit/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Service of Process:  You Must Actually Serve the Defendant</title>
		<link>http://www.mglaw.net/2010/07/service-of-process-you-must-actually-serve-the-defendant/</link>
		<comments>http://www.mglaw.net/2010/07/service-of-process-you-must-actually-serve-the-defendant/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 26 Jul 2010 14:38:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Bob Mendes</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Blog]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[discovery]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[jurisdiction]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mglaw.net/?p=2291</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In the &#8220;master of the obvious&#8221; category of legal opinions, we have Profitt v. Smoky Mountain Woodcarvers Supply, Inc., 2010 WL 1240975 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 31, 2010).  Here, the Tennessee Court of Appeals ruled that, absent service of process on the defendant pursuant to Rule 4 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure, [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.mglaw.net/2010/07/service-of-process-you-must-actually-serve-the-defendant/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Does Hamilton v. Lanning Impact Individual Chapter 11 Cases?</title>
		<link>http://www.mglaw.net/2010/07/does-hamilton-v-lanning-impact-individual-chapter-11-cases/</link>
		<comments>http://www.mglaw.net/2010/07/does-hamilton-v-lanning-impact-individual-chapter-11-cases/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 Jul 2010 21:41:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Featured Publications]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Insolvency]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Publication]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mglaw.net/?p=2249</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[On June 7, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court issued Hamilton v. Lanning, 2010 WL 2243704.  The case holds that when calculating the &#8220;projected disposable income&#8221; of a Chapter 13 debtor, the bankruptcy court may take into consideration changes to income or expenses that are known or virtually certain.  The question is whether Lanning [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.mglaw.net/2010/07/does-hamilton-v-lanning-impact-individual-chapter-11-cases/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>It&#8217;s In the Contract: Allowance of Postpetition Claims for Attorneys&#8217; Fees by Unsecured Creditors</title>
		<link>http://www.mglaw.net/2010/07/its-in-the-contract-allowance-of-postpetition-claims-for-attorneys-fees-by-unsecured-creditors/</link>
		<comments>http://www.mglaw.net/2010/07/its-in-the-contract-allowance-of-postpetition-claims-for-attorneys-fees-by-unsecured-creditors/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 Jul 2010 21:41:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Insolvency]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Publication]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mglaw.net/?p=2275</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Recent Second Circuit and Ninth Circuit opinions highlight the dispute over whether or not the Bankruptcy Code authorizes allowance of claims for postpetition legal fees incurred by unsecured creditors.  Specifically, while not all Circuits agree, in the wake of the 2007 United States Supreme Court decision Travelers Casualty &#38; Surety Co. of North America [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.mglaw.net/2010/07/its-in-the-contract-allowance-of-postpetition-claims-for-attorneys-fees-by-unsecured-creditors/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>A Primer on Bankruptcy Appeals</title>
		<link>http://www.mglaw.net/2010/07/a-primer-on-bankruptcy-appeals/</link>
		<comments>http://www.mglaw.net/2010/07/a-primer-on-bankruptcy-appeals/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 Jul 2010 21:41:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Insolvency]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Publication]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mglaw.net/?p=2253</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Every lawyer knows that judges are infallible &#8212; particularly when you are at the lectern appearing before one at any given time.  But to paraphrase Justice Robert Jackson, judges are infallible only to the extent they have the final word.  See Brown v. Allen, 344 U.S. 443, 540 (1953) (Jackson, J., concurring) (&#8221;We [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.mglaw.net/2010/07/a-primer-on-bankruptcy-appeals/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>An Interactive Website Can Constitute Purposeful Availment for Purposes of Specific Jurisdiction</title>
		<link>http://www.mglaw.net/2010/07/an-interactive-website-can-constitute-purposeful-availment-for-purposes-of-specific-jurisdiction/</link>
		<comments>http://www.mglaw.net/2010/07/an-interactive-website-can-constitute-purposeful-availment-for-purposes-of-specific-jurisdiction/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 Jul 2010 14:03:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Joe Kelly</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Blog]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[business litigation]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[jurisdiction]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mglaw.net/?p=2257</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A recent case points out that, while the internet may be shrinking the world, in doing so it is broadening concepts related to jurisdiction. Braille, LLC (&#8221;Braille&#8221;) is a limited liability company formed in Florida that sells batteries for automotive use. Braille has no physical presence in the State of Tennessee in the way of [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.mglaw.net/2010/07/an-interactive-website-can-constitute-purposeful-availment-for-purposes-of-specific-jurisdiction/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>When Is a Guaranty Limited and When Is It Unconditional?</title>
		<link>http://www.mglaw.net/2010/07/when-is-a-guaranty-limited-and-when-is-it-unconditional/</link>
		<comments>http://www.mglaw.net/2010/07/when-is-a-guaranty-limited-and-when-is-it-unconditional/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 Jul 2010 15:31:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Joe Kelly</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Blog]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[commercial loans]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[contracts]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mglaw.net/?p=2217</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Guaranties generally come in two flavors: limited and unconditional.  At the outset of a loan, one of the topics for negotiation is the guaranty.  First, will there be a guaranty?  Second, if there is a guaranty, will it be unconditional and unlimited or will it be limited in some way?  A [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.mglaw.net/2010/07/when-is-a-guaranty-limited-and-when-is-it-unconditional/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Good Faith and Fair Dealing Is Not an Independent Tort Claim</title>
		<link>http://www.mglaw.net/2010/07/good-faith-and-fair-dealing-is-not-an-independent-tort-claim/</link>
		<comments>http://www.mglaw.net/2010/07/good-faith-and-fair-dealing-is-not-an-independent-tort-claim/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 13 Jul 2010 22:32:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Bob Mendes</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Blog]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[contracts]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[torts]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mglaw.net/?p=2160</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In a lawsuit by former wide receiver David Givens against the Tennessee Titans, Givens alleged that the team was aware of a defect in his left knee and did not tell him about the problem.  As a result, Givens alleged, he continued to play football until he was injured in a game in November [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.mglaw.net/2010/07/good-faith-and-fair-dealing-is-not-an-independent-tort-claim/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Will Helou and Griffin Dunham to Present Topics at Advanced Collection Strategies Seminar</title>
		<link>http://www.mglaw.net/2010/07/will-helou-and-griffin-dunham-to-present-topics-at-advanced-collection-strategies-seminar/</link>
		<comments>http://www.mglaw.net/2010/07/will-helou-and-griffin-dunham-to-present-topics-at-advanced-collection-strategies-seminar/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Jul 2010 15:44:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Featured News]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mglaw.net/?p=2157</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Will Helou and Griffin Dunham will be presenters at a full day &#8220;Advanced Collection Strategies&#8221; seminar to be held on July 28, 2010 at the Millennium Maxwell House Hotel, 2025 Rosa L. Parks Boulevard.  The topics presented will focus on proven techniques for collecting judgments and litigating collection-based harassment claims.  For more information about the [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.mglaw.net/2010/07/will-helou-and-griffin-dunham-to-present-topics-at-advanced-collection-strategies-seminar/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Legislative Update: Workers Compensation Law for Construction Industry Amended</title>
		<link>http://www.mglaw.net/2010/07/legislative-update-workers-compensation-law-for-construction-industry-amended/</link>
		<comments>http://www.mglaw.net/2010/07/legislative-update-workers-compensation-law-for-construction-industry-amended/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 06 Jul 2010 18:58:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Cheyanne Mahoney</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Blog]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[workers' compensation]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mglaw.net/?p=2154</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A law requiring every worker on a construction site to have workers&#8217; compensation insurance on themselves has been permanently amended.   Under the prior law, sole proprietors and partners were not required to obtain coverage.  By classifying employees as sole proprietors, some employers (mostly in the construction industry) were able to take advantage [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.mglaw.net/2010/07/legislative-update-workers-compensation-law-for-construction-industry-amended/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
