Latest news with #FourthAmendment
Mint
3 hours ago
- Business
- Mint
IBBI notifies amendments to streamline corporate insolvency process
New Delhi, Jun 2 (PTI) The IBBI has notified amendments to the regulations governing corporate insolvency, aiming to streamline procedures, protect creditor interests, and encourage greater investor participation in resolution processes. The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) notified the Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons Fourth Amendment regulations, 2025 on May 26, according to a release. Among the significant change introduced is a provision for allowing resolution professionals with the Committee of Creditor's (CoC) approval, to invite expressions of interest not only for the entire corporate debtor but also for individual assets or a combination of both. By enabling concurrent invitations, the resolution process can reduce timelines, prevent value erosion in viable segments, and encourage broader investor participation, IBBI said. The regulations also revise the framework for payments under resolution plans executed in stages. In such cases, financial creditors who did not support the resolution plan will now receive payments at least on a pro rata basis and ahead of those who voted in favour. The Board said this approach balances the legitimate rights of dissenting creditors with the practical constraints of phased implementation. In another notable amendment, the CoC has been empowered to direct resolution professionals to invite the interim finance providers to attend its meetings as observers without voting rights. As per IBBI, this measure is aimed to provide interim finance providers with a better understanding of the corporate debtor's operational status, thereby enabling them to make well-informed decisions regarding funding requirements. The amended norms also mandate the resolution professionals to present all received plans, including non-compliant ones to the CoC along with relevant details, it said.
Yahoo
2 days ago
- General
- Yahoo
Kansas Supreme Court splits on constitutionality of drug-dog search at Wichita traffic stop
Kansas Supreme Court Justice Caleb Stegall, second from left back row, wrote the majority opinion in a case questioning constitutionality of admitting evidence found by Wichita police after deploying a drug-sniffing dog. Justice Eric Rosen, from row left, wrote the dissenting opinion in the case raising questions about Fourth Amendment rights in searches and seizures. (Kansas Reflector screen capture from Supreme Court photograph) TOPEKA — Wichita police officers Donald Bailey and Shawn Isham were watching a suspected drug house in 2020 when Gina Wilson parked a vehicle in the driveway, entered the residence, reappeared a few minutes later and drove away. The officers followed Wilson before pulling her over on Greenfield Street, allegedly for twice failing to properly use a turn signal. Wilson denied committing the traffic infractions, but informed officers she didn't have a valid driver's license. What happened next as Wilson stood on the curb with police officers was closely examined by the Sedgwick County District Court, Kansas Court of Appeals and Kansas Supreme Court. In the end, Wilson lost her bid to exclude evidence of a drug offense and the state's highest court exposed a disagreement regarding constitutional rights of individuals subjected to searches and seizures by law enforcement. On Friday, the Supreme Court's majority opinion from Justice Caleb Stegall affirmed the officers' compliance with the Fourth Amendment in terms of constitutionally conducting the traffic stop and deploying Oden, a drug-sniffing dog, to examine the exterior of Wilson's vehicle. Wilson had refused to consent to a search of her vehicle. However, the canine alerted to presence of illicit drugs. A subsequent examination of the car's interior by Wichita officers led to discovery of a packet of oxycodone pills. Stegall concluded that because Wilson had no legal ability to drive the car away at conclusion of the traffic-related portion of the stop, officers didn't overstep their authority by nominally extending the encounter to allow for the dog sniff. Four minutes elapsed between when the officers completed her traffic citation and the time Oden alerted to presence of drugs. 'Even though she was not under arrest, Wilson argues that because she was not free to leave during these four minutes, she was unconstitutionally seized as an extension of the traffic stop,' Stegall said in the opinion. 'As such, she concludes that the search of the car was also unconstitutional and therefore the evidence gained from the unconstitutional search must be excluded.' Stegall's majority opinion argued Wilson's suspended license created an unusual circumstance enabling officers to deploy the K-9 around her legally parked car that no one was attempting to move. 'Oden's alert provided probable cause, which allowed the officers to perform a warrantless search of the car … and the pills were properly admitted into evidence,' Stegall's opinion said. 'Therefore, officers do not run afoul of the Fourth Amendment's protections by performing a dog sniff of any vehicle that is legally parked in public.' The dissent by Justice Eric Rosen, which was joined by Chief Justice Marla Luckert and Justice Melissa Standridge, said the drug evidence should have been suppressed because prolonging a traffic stop to complete the drug sniff without reasonable suspicion violated the Fourth Amendment. Rosen held the Wichita officers seized Wilson and the vehicle, extended the traffic stop, deployed Oden and discovered an envelope containing 30 oxycodone capsules in the car's console. Rosen expressed frustration the majority opinion 'pronounces some new legal rules for which it provides no supporting authority.' He challenged the majority's declaration that a vehicle directed to the side of the road during a traffic stop shouldn't be characterized as seized by law enforcement. 'The majority likens this car to any car that was voluntarily parked in a public place,' Rosen wrote. 'From here, the majority announces that officers can perform a dog sniff on any car legally parked in public.' In 2022, Wilson was convicted of driving while suspended and illegal possession of opiates. She unsuccessfully argued in district court for suppression of drug evidence while alleging the officers impermissibly extended scope of the traffic stop to create a window for deployment of the K-9 unit. The Court of Appeals sided with the district court in 2023 after concluding there was 'no evidence that the dog sniff meaningfully extended the duration of the original stop.' The divided Supreme Court affirmed Wilson's constitutional rights weren't violated.
Yahoo
2 days ago
- General
- Yahoo
Kansas Supreme Court splits on constitutionality of drug-dog search at Wichita traffic stop
Kansas Supreme Court Justice Caleb Stegall, second from left back row, wrote the majority opinion in a case questioning constitutionality of admitting evidence found by Wichita police after deploying a drug-sniffing dog. Justice Eric Rosen, from row left, wrote the dissenting opinion in the case raising questions about Fourth Amendment rights in searches and seizures. (Kansas Reflector screen capture from Supreme Court photograph) TOPEKA — Wichita police officers Donald Bailey and Shawn Isham were watching a suspected drug house in 2020 when Gina Wilson parked a vehicle in the driveway, entered the residence, reappeared a few minutes later and drove away. The officers followed Wilson before pulling her over on Greenfield Street, allegedly for twice failing to properly use a turn signal. Wilson denied committing the traffic infractions, but informed officers she didn't have a valid driver's license. What happened next as Wilson stood on the curb with police officers was closely examined by the Sedgwick County District Court, Kansas Court of Appeals and Kansas Supreme Court. In the end, Wilson lost her bid to exclude evidence of a drug offense and the state's highest court exposed a disagreement regarding constitutional rights of individuals subjected to searches and seizures by law enforcement. On Friday, the Supreme Court's majority opinion from Justice Caleb Stegall affirmed the officers' compliance with the Fourth Amendment in terms of constitutionally conducting the traffic stop and deploying Oden, a drug-sniffing dog, to examine the exterior of Wilson's vehicle. Wilson had refused to consent to a search of her vehicle. However, the canine alerted to presence of illicit drugs. A subsequent examination of the car's interior by Wichita officers led to discovery of a packet of oxycodone pills. Stegall concluded that because Wilson had no legal ability to drive the car away at conclusion of the traffic-related portion of the stop, officers didn't overstep their authority by nominally extending the encounter to allow for the dog sniff. Four minutes elapsed between when the officers completed her traffic citation and the time Oden alerted to presence of drugs. 'Even though she was not under arrest, Wilson argues that because she was not free to leave during these four minutes, she was unconstitutionally seized as an extension of the traffic stop,' Stegall said in the opinion. 'As such, she concludes that the search of the car was also unconstitutional and therefore the evidence gained from the unconstitutional search must be excluded.' Stegall's majority opinion argued Wilson's suspended license created an unusual circumstance enabling officers to deploy the K-9 around her legally parked car that no one was attempting to move. 'Oden's alert provided probable cause, which allowed the officers to perform a warrantless search of the car … and the pills were properly admitted into evidence,' Stegall's opinion said. 'Therefore, officers do not run afoul of the Fourth Amendment's protections by performing a dog sniff of any vehicle that is legally parked in public.' The dissent by Justice Eric Rosen, which was joined by Chief Justice Marla Luckert and Justice Melissa Standridge, said the drug evidence should have been suppressed because prolonging a traffic stop to complete the drug sniff without reasonable suspicion violated the Fourth Amendment. Rosen held the Wichita officers seized Wilson and the vehicle, extended the traffic stop, deployed Oden and discovered an envelope containing 30 oxycodone capsules in the car's console. Rosen expressed frustration the majority opinion 'pronounces some new legal rules for which it provides no supporting authority.' He challenged the majority's declaration that a vehicle directed to the side of the road during a traffic stop shouldn't be characterized as seized by law enforcement. 'The majority likens this car to any car that was voluntarily parked in a public place,' Rosen wrote. 'From here, the majority announces that officers can perform a dog sniff on any car legally parked in public.' In 2022, Wilson was convicted of driving while suspended and illegal possession of opiates. She unsuccessfully argued in district court for suppression of drug evidence while alleging the officers impermissibly extended scope of the traffic stop to create a window for deployment of the K-9 unit. The Court of Appeals sided with the district court in 2023 after concluding there was 'no evidence that the dog sniff meaningfully extended the duration of the original stop.' The divided Supreme Court affirmed Wilson's constitutional rights weren't violated.
The Hindu
2 days ago
- Business
- The Hindu
IBBI amends regulations to further streamline corporate insolvency resolution process
The Insolvency & Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) has notified the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) (Fourth Amendment) Regulations, 2025 that aim to further streamline and strengthen corporate insolvency resolution process. As per the amended regulations notified on May 26, which come into effect immediately, the resolution professional — with the nod of Committee of Creditors (CoC) — can invite expression of interest for submission of resolution plans for a company under insolvency process either as a whole, or for sale of one or more of assets of the company, or for both. By enabling concurrent invitations, the resolution process will see reduced timelines, prevent value erosion in viable segments, and encourage broader investor participation, IBBI said. Where a resolution plan will provide for payment in stages, the financial creditors who did not vote in favour of the resolution plan shall be paid at least pro rata and in priority over financial creditors who voted in favour of the plan, in each stage. This approach balances the legitimate rights of dissenting creditors with the practical constraints of phased implementations, it said. Resolution professionals are now required to present all resolution plans received, including those that are non-compliant, to the CoC along with relevant details. CoC has been empowered to direct the resolution professional to invite the providers of interim finance to attend CoC meetings as observers without voting rights, IBBI said.
Yahoo
3 days ago
- General
- Yahoo
Burlington mayor responds to city being named ‘sanctuary jurisdiction'
BURLINGTON, Vt. (ABC22/FOX44) – After the Department of Homeland Security released Friday a list of 'sanctuary jurisdictions' that do not comply with federal immigration law, Burlington mayor Emma Mulvaney-Stanak, whose city was specifically named along with Winooski, Montpelier, and the state of Vermont as a while, said she disagreed that the city is violating federal law. 'Burlington has had a Fair & Impartial Policing Policy for years – this policy offers important guidance to local law enforcement officers, both to prevent discrimination on the basis of protected classifications, and to provide explicit clarity that our local police agency is not charged with enforcement of civil immigration law. 'This policy is crucial for maintaining trust between the community and the police department, and it ensures that people can call for help without fear of discrimination based on immigration status or other protected class.' Burlington Mayor announces who she intends to hire as fire chief The city's official policy, effective as of October of last year, cites the protections against 'unreasonable search and seizure' offered by the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in saying that Burlington police officers do not have the authority to enforce federal immigration law, and may not detain people on behalf of federal immigration authorities without a warrant. Read Burlington's Fair & Impartial Policing Policy hereDownload The list of 'sanctuary jurisdictions' complies with Executive Order 14287, which cites 'public safety and national security risks' and allows the federal government to cut off funding to states, counties, and municipalities on the list. It calls lack of compliance with immigration authories 'lawless insurrection against the supremacy of Federal law'. New Hampshire bill would target sanctuary cities like Lebanon and Hanover The neighboring state of New Hampshire recently banned sanctuary cities in the state, with governor Kelly Ayotte saying, 'New Hampshire will never be a sanctuary for criminals, and we will keep working every day to remain the safest state in the nation.' Neverthless, Lebanon and Hanover in New Hampshire were specifically named on the list. Mulvaney-Stanak says she has no intention of changing the city's policies to match federal demands. 'Burlington, like other communities identified as sanctuary jurisdictions, has a proud history of welcoming immigrants and refugees to our City, and we will not back down from ensuring the safety of all who live, work and visit our community.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
