About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


Case Citations [i] (Spring 2026)

handle is hein.ali/seccontract0200 and id is 1 raw text is: THE AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE Spring 2026 Citations CONTRACTS 2D Generally C.A.2, 2025. Cit. generally in case cit. in ftn. In a dispute arising from a term sheet that buyer entered with company, which contemplated buyer's purchase of stock in company as well as an additional agreement in which buyer would gain exclusive rights to company's intellectual property, buyer sued company, seeking the return of money it wired to company in exchange for the stock, after negotiations regarding the exclusivity arrangement broke down. After a bench trial, the district court found in favor of company. This court affirmed, holding that the key term involving the stock sale was severable from the term sheet's other terms and that there was no provision in the term sheet that conditioned the stock purchase on the successful entry into other agreements contemplated in the term sheet. The court reasoned that, because the term sheet's provisions related to the stock purchase contemplated exchange of assets with defined values, the parties' obligations thereunder constituted agreed equivalents under the Restatement Second of Contracts, which the Delaware courts regularly followed. Givaudan SA v. Conagen Inc., 128 F.4th 485, 503. N.D.Ill.2025. Cit. generally in ftn. Investment vehicle for litigation funder, as assignee of a wholesale turkey distributor, filed antitrust claims against turkey producers and agricultural entities, claiming that defendants were involved in a widespread conspiracy to artificially suppress turkey production and increase turkey prices. This court denied defendants' motion for summary judgment, in which defendants argued that the arrangement between litigation funder and assignee was prohibited by public policy, holding that broad public-policy decisions about the scope of litigation funders' access to the courts reached beyond the purview of the federal judiciary. The court cited the Restatement Second of Contracts in noting that the historic common-law approach to champerty had largely disappeared, and that, in any event, Restatement First of Contracts § 542 suggested that the doctrine of champerty would not prohibit assignee and litigation funder's arrangement because, regardless of whether assignee recovered, it owned the entire claim and thus there would be no division of proceeds. In re Turkey Antitrust Litigation, 789 F.Supp.3d 648, 653. S.D.N.Y.Bkrtcy.Ct.2025. Cit. generally in cases cit. and quot. in sup. Debtor and its related affiliates sought approval of their disclosure statement and confirmation of their joint Chapter 11 reorganization plan, which included third-party releases that utilized an opt-out mechanism; U.S. Trustee and U.S. COPYRIGHT C2026 By THE AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America For earlier citations, see the Appendices, Supplements, or Pocket Parts, if any, that correspond to the subject matter under examination.