Procrastinators' Programs on December 27, 2018

8:30 am - 9:00 am   

Registration Opens

9:00 am - 10:00 am

Ethics: Your Word is Not Always Your Bond – Put it in Writing

Speaker:

Edward W. Trapolin, Irwin Fritchie Urquhart & Moore, LLC

10:10 am - 11:10 am

Professionalism in Mediation

Speaker:

Professor Bobby Harges, Loyola University New Orleans College of Law

11:20 am - 12:20 pm

Developments in Federal Removal Jurisdiction—“Arising Under,” CAFA Amount in Controversy, Master Limited Partnerships, and Learning the Hard Way

•          “Arising Under” federal removal jurisdiction has been recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court as a “narrow category” of cases where federal question jurisdiction will be found to exist, even where no federal cause of action is invoked, where a federal issue is nevertheless necessarily raised, is actually disputed, is substantial, and is capable of federal court resolution without disrupting the federal-state balance. In Bd. of Commissioners of SLFPA-E v. Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, LLC, however, the Fifth Circuit has opened up that “narrow” category. We will examine the claim at issue in SLFPA-E and how the Fifth Circuit has arguably broadened removal jurisdiction.
•          For purposes of the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”), amount in controversy as applied to a mass action depends not just on the aggregate amount in controversy but on the amount in controversy applicable to individual plaintiffs. In a series of cases related to the emission of chloroprene from the Denka facility in St. John the Baptist Parish, in mass actions brought by residents each plaintiff entered into a stipulation limiting the amount of judgment they would enforce, and the district court (Judge Feldman) granted their motions to remand after a CAFA removal, on the basis that the pre-removal stipulations were effective to keep them under the amount in controversy threshold.
•          Finally, the question of diversity jurisdiction and citizenship of an entity was implicated in the Fifth Circuit recently in Vintage Assets, Inc. v. Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C.. There, several layers of LLC membership up the chain of ownership of one of the defendants was an entity that is a master limited partnership. In MLPs, usually one of the limited partners is a group of holders of publicly traded membership units. Though thousands of unit-holders can own these publicly traded shares, like a corporation, the (now) two federal courts of appeals that have examined the issue have held that they are treated not like corporations but like partnerships, with the citizenship of every publicly-traded-unit holder being a state of citizenship for the MLP. The implication is that MLPs can almost never rely on diversity jurisdiction for removal, as chances are good that a unit-holder may reside in any state.                                                                                       

Speaker:

 Tad Bartlett, Jones, Swanson, Huddell & Garrison, LLC 

12:20 pm - 1:20 pm

Lunch on Your Own

1:20 pm - 2:20 pm

Tax Incentive Updates

This presentation will discuss the latest statutory and regulatory updates to a number of tax incentives, such as the Industrial Tax Exemption Program, Quality Jobs Rebate, and Enterprise Zone Program. 

Speaker:

Angela W. Adolph, Kean Miller, LLP

2:30 pm - 3:30 pm

A Bankruptcy Crash Course: How Bankruptcy May Affect Your Practice? 

This CLE will discuss how you deal with the insolvency/bankruptcy defense in mediation or settlement discussions. It will also explore bankruptcy related issues that concern Estate Planning, Successions, Domestic Law and other non-bankruptcy practice areas.

Speaker:

Frederick L. Bunol, Derbes Law Firm, LLC

3:40 pm - 4:40 pm

How to Help Protect Your Clients against Intellectual Property and Information Technology Surprises

Speaker:

Julie R. Chauvin, GARVEY, SMITH & NEHRBASS, PATENT ATTORNEYS, L.L.C.
Seth M. Nehrbass, GARVEY, SMITH & NEHRBASS, PATENT ATTORNEYS, L.L.C.

4:50 pm - 5:50 pm

Labor & Employment: Navigating the Swampy Waters of Louisiana’s Non-Compete Law 

A close look at the requirements of La. R.S. 23:921 and advising clients on the benefits of non-compete agreements and other restrictive covenants.

Speaker:

Joseph F. Lavigne, Jones Walker LLP

Full day registration