Here's what we are reading this morning:
New York Court’s Ruling Could Have Broader Implications for No-Action Clauses | O'Melveny: The Court refused to enforce the amended no-action clause because doing so would not effectuate a principle purpose of such clauses, to protect an issuer from multiple claims from different lenders, in order to protect the venture as a whole. While there is a logic to this ruling, that limitation is not found in the plain language of no-action clauses and could create difficulty for lenders seeking to enforce bargained-for no-action clauses in future inter-lender disputes if such enforcement is held to that standard.
U.S. judge declines to stop J&J from splitting talc liabilities from main business | Reuters: A U.S. judge declined to stop Johnson & Johnson from taking steps to offload widespread Baby Powder liabilities from the rest of its business, preserving the option for the healthcare conglomerate to potentially move thousands of claims from people who used its talc products...
Current Reports (Form 8-K) Filed With the Securities & Exchange Commission (SEC) Regarding Material Impairments (Item 2.06) for the Week Ended Thursday Aug 26, 2021: