No. 21-1608
McKinsey & Co., Inc., et al. v. Jay Alix
Amici (1)
Experienced Counsel
Tags: bankruptcy-fraud circuit-split civil-claims civil-rico judicial-precedent precedent proximate-causation RICO statutory-interpretation supervisory-responsibilities
Latest Conference:
2022-10-07
Question Presented (from Petition)
Whether lower courts must follow the standard established by this Court's precedent for an element of a plaintiff's statutory claim, even if, in the court's judgment, the plaintiff's allegations implicate the court's "supervisory responsibilities."
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether lower courts must follow the standard established by this Court's precedent for an element of a plaintiff's statutory claim, even if, in the court's judgment, the plaintiff's allegations implicate the court's 'supervisory responsibilities'
Docket Entries
2022-10-11
Petition DENIED.
2022-09-14
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/7/2022.
2022-09-13
Reply of petitioners McKinsey & Co., Inc., et al. filed.(Distributed)
2022-08-29
Brief of respondent Jay Alix in opposition filed.
2022-07-28
Brief amici curiae of Professors Samuel P. Jordan and Robert J. Pushaw, Jr. filed.
2022-07-08
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including August 29, 2022.
2022-07-07
Motion to extend the time to file a response from July 29, 2022 to August 29, 2022, submitted to The Clerk.
2022-06-28
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due July 29, 2022)
Attorneys
Jay Alix
Sean Francis O'Shea — Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP, Respondent
McKinsey & Co., Inc., et al.
David A. O'Neil — Debevoise & Plimpton LLP, Petitioner
Samuel P. Jordan and Robert J. Pushaw, Jr.
Joshua Sean Bolian — Riley & Jacobson, PLC, Amicus