FMC Corp. v. Shoshone-Bannock Tribes

In 1998, FMC Corporation agreed to submit to the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes’ permitting processes, including the payment of fees, for clean-up work required as part of consent decree negotiations with the Environmental Protection Agency. Then, in 2002, FMC refused to pay the Tribes under a permitting agreement entered into by both parties, even though the company continued to store hazardous waste on land within the Shoshone-Bannock Fort Hall Reservation in Idaho. FMC challenged the Tribes’ authority to enforce the $1.5 million permitting fees first in tribal court and later challenged the Tribes’ authority to exercise civil regulatory and adjudicatory jurisdiction over the non-Indian corporation in federal court. FMC Corp. v. Shoshone-Bannock Tribes demonstrates the complexities and fraught nature of tribal civil jurisdiction

350 Montana v. Bernhardt

In its second trip before the District Court of Montana, the Bull Mountain Mine expansion was again halted, this time due to coal train derailments. The Bull Mountain Mine expansion, previously enjoined in 2015 for violating the National Environmental Policy Act, was revived in 2018 when the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement approved the expansion a second time. Here, the court found the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement did not comply with the National Environmental Policy Act on grounds that the Environmental Assessment failed to properly analyze the risk of train derailments

PREVIEW—United States Forest Service v. Cowpasture River Preservation Association: Can the Pipeline Cross the Trail?

The Supreme Court of the United States will hear oral argument in this matter on Monday, February 24, 2020, at 10 a.m. in the Supreme Court Building in Washington, D.C. Anthony Yang, Assistant to the Solicitor General, will likely argue for the United States. In a divided oral argument, Paul D. Clement will likely appear for Atlantic Coast Pipeline, LLC, the petitioner in consolidated case No. 18-1587, Atlantic Coast Pipeline, LLC v. Cowpasture River Preservation Association. Michael K. Kellogg will likely appear for the Respondents

Estate Planning Choice of Wealth Management Entity: The Limited Partnership As An Alternative To The Trust

The substantial and steady increases in the amount a taxpayer can transfer free of federal estate, gift, and generation skipping transfer taxes1 makes transfer tax planning irrelevant when counseling more than 99.9% of Americans.2 Traditional estate planning structures set in place at a time when the estate tax impacted many more Americans may no longer achieve a client’s current estate planning goals. The seismic shift in the estate planning paradigm requires estate planners rethink use of planning structures in light of shifting client objectives. Evaluated in terms of these shifting objectives, the limited partnership may prove just as nimble as the trust in reacting to altered goals of affluent clients who desire continued management as assets pass to the next generation. This Article explores the continued viability and new role the limited partnership can take in estate planning. This Article takes a closer look at the limited partnership as an alternative to the trust. After summarizing the shift in client perspective and objectives in part two, this Article analyzes specific characteristics of the limited partnership important to achieving those goals in comparison to the trust; in part three, it reveals the general partner, much like a trustee, can provide management of partnership assets and determine the timing and appropriateness of distributions to interest holders. The limited partnership, further, can provide some protection of assets from the immediate reach of a limited partner’s creditors. It also can minimize income tax burdens when compared to a trust. The limited partnership can meet these client preferences and, at the same time, avoid certain downsides of trusts, such as more stringent investment duties and hurdles faced in trust modification. The analysis reveals that the characteristics of the limited partnership, as compared to a trust, make it a viable choice for affluent clients