Billion Law is pleased to announce the successful resolution of a federal civil rights lawsuit filed on behalf of a Muslim Imam against the Delaware Board of Funeral Services (DBFS). The case, litigated in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, addressed significant constitutional questions surrounding religious freedom and state licensing requirements in the deathcare industry.

Background

Islamic tradition prohibits embalming and generally requires that burial occur within hours of death. Delaware law, however, required individuals filing death certificates and body transfer paperwork to hold a state-issued funeral director's license — a credential that mandates completion of a minimum of 25 embalmings as part of the licensing process. Because his religious beliefs prohibited participation in the embalming requirement, the Imam was unable to obtain the necessary license and was consequently denied access to the State's online system for filing mandatory deathcare paperwork.

For years, the Imam was compelled to engage licensed funeral directors to file paperwork on his behalf, at a cost of hundreds to thousands of dollars per filing — a significant markup over the standard $25 filing fee available to licensed directors. This financial burden fell disproportionately on Muslim families, Orthodox Jewish communities, and others whose religious traditions do not include embalming, effectively penalizing them for exercising constitutionally protected religious practices.

Billion Law's Role

In June 2024, Mark Billion of Billion Law joined co-counsel from the ACLU of Delaware in filing suit, asserting that the licensing requirements, as applied to religious burial practitioners, constituted an unconstitutional burden on First Amendment rights.

Resolution

The matter has been resolved through a favorable settlement. As a result, the Imam is now permitted to provide non-profit Islamic burial services — including the filing of all required deathcare paperwork — without obtaining a funeral director's license or funeral establishment permit. This settlement represents a meaningful protection for religious communities throughout Delaware.

Billion Law remains committed to advocating for clients whose constitutional rights are at stake. If you believe your rights have been violated, we encourage you to contact our office to discuss your matter.

‍

Billion Law is pleased to report a favorable outcome for our client, Lucy Caldwell, in a federal trademark lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. On January 7, 2026, United States District Judge Gregory B. Williams granted Ms. Caldwell's Motion to Dismiss, concluding that the Court lacked personal jurisdiction over her.

Background

The case arose from allegations by No Labels — a Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit organization — that a group of defendants collectively operated a copycat website at the domain nolabels.com, which was allegedly designed to imitate No Labels' legitimate website at nolabels.org. No Labels claimed that the infringing website contained content intentionally crafted to portray the organization in a false and damaging light. The lawsuit asserted numerous claims, including trademark infringement, cybersquatting, trademark dilution, and civil conspiracy, among others.

Ms. Caldwell was named as one of several individual defendants alleged to have participated in the creation and operation of the infringing website. Billion Law's Mark M. Billion and Peter K. Schaeffer represented Ms. Caldwell throughout the proceedings.

The Legal Issue: Personal Jurisdiction

The central issue with respect to Ms. Caldwell was whether the Federal District Court in Delaware had personal jurisdiction over her. Plaintiff argued that Ms. Caldwell was subject to jurisdiction in Delaware because she had allegedly served as an agent of NoLabels.com Inc. — a Delaware corporation — and had provided services directed toward Delaware in connection with the infringing website.

Billion Law argued successfully that Plaintiff's allegations fell short of the legal standard required to establish personal jurisdiction. Specifically, the Court found that No Labels failed to allege that Ms. Caldwell's relevant activities actually took place in Delaware, as required under Delaware's long-arm statute. The Court further rejected Plaintiff's conspiracy theory of jurisdiction, finding that No Labels had not sufficiently alleged that any substantial act in furtherance of the purported conspiracy actually occurred within the State of Delaware.

The Outcome

The Court granted Ms. Caldwell's Motion to Dismiss in its entirety, finding that Plaintiff had failed to make even a prima facie case of personal jurisdiction. Ms. Caldwell was dismissed from the federal action as a result.

What This Case Illustrates

This outcome underscores the importance of rigorously challenging the threshold question of personal jurisdiction at the outset of litigation. Courts cannot exercise authority over individuals simply because a co-defendant may have connections to a forum state — plaintiffs must allege specific acts by each defendant that are tied to the jurisdiction in question. Billion Law's early and effective motion practice on this issue resulted in our client's complete dismissal from a complex, multi-defendant federal lawsuit.

‍

In litigation, one of the most powerful tools available to a trial attorney is the ability to use an opponent's own evidence against them. Billion Law did exactly that in Wang v. Injective Labs Inc..

On February 6, 2026, United States Circuit Judge William C. Bryson issued an Order confirming that our client, plaintiff Xin Wang, may call an expert witness retained and paid for by the defendant as a witness in the plaintiff's own case-in-chief at trial.

A Bold but Sound Strategy

The move is unconventional. Expert witnesses are typically thought of as belonging to the side that hired them. Calling the opposing party's expert as your own witness is not something most litigants — or even most attorneys — would consider.

But the law supports it. The Court reaffirmed a well-established but rarely invoked principle: expert witnesses do not "belong" to the party that retained them. Experts are obligated to testify impartially, and their opinions are available to all parties in the litigation. As the Court recognized, no party holds a proprietary right to the testimony of its own expert.

The Court's Order

Judge Bryson authorized the plaintiff to calldefendant's expert during the plaintiff's case-in-chief, subject to two conditions. First, the plaintiff must establish the expert's qualifications and the examination was to be limited to opinions already set forth in the expert report.

Within those boundaries, the plaintiff is free to present the defendant's own expert to the jury — on the plaintiff's terms, at the plaintiff's chosen moment in the trial.

‍

Billion Law, representing Alliance Global Solutions, LLC, secured a favorable ruling in Dozier v. Alliance Global Solutions, LLC, 24-cv-348 (M.D. Tenn.), before the Middle District of Tennessee. The case involved the application of Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co. to Tennessee’s statute requiring out-of-state corporations to register with the Secretary of State.

The plaintiff argued that the Tennessee corporate registration statute conferred personal jurisdiction over the defendant under the Mallory decision. However, the Court declined to make an Erie guess regarding whether the Tennessee statute provided such jurisdiction. Instead, the Court ruled that personal jurisdiction could only be established if (i) the statute explicitly conferred jurisdiction or (ii) state courts had previously determined that the registration regime conferred Mallory jurisdiction. In its decision, the Court noted, "The absence of such decision is dispositive in and of itself."

Billion Law was assisted by Tennessee counsel from Riley & Jacobson, including Katharine Klein and James Bowen. This ruling provides clarity on the limitations of corporate registration statutes in Tennessee, particularly in the context of personal jurisdiction claims under Mallory. The decision marks an important interpretation of the jurisdictional reach of Tennessee's statutory framework for out-of-state corporations.

‍

‍

This week, Billion Law achieved a significant victory representing USA Rugby in a high-stakes court battle involving the use of Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) funds during bankruptcy. The U.S. Federal Government, through the Small Business Administration (SBA), argued that USA Rugby, in Chapter 11 bankruptcy, should not be allowed to use $375,000 in PPP loans that had already been disbursed. The SBA claimed that Justice Brendan L. Shannon lacked jurisdiction over the use of these funds and that businesses in bankruptcy were categorically excluded from the program.

However, Billion Law successfully countered these arguments, emphasizing the key fact that the SBA had approved and paid the loan despite USA Rugby (officially, the United States Rugby Football Union Ltd.) having already filed for bankruptcy. This approval raised questions about the SBA's ability to retroactively deny access to funds already granted.

At the heart of the case was whether the SBA’s blanket denial of PPP loans to bankrupt businesses conflicted with the bankruptcy code, which prohibits government discrimination against companies in bankruptcy when administering grant programs. The court focused not on loan approval, which had already occurred, but on whether USA Rugby could use the funds to maintain operations during bankruptcy.

Despite the SBA’s objections, Judge Shannon ruled in favor of USA Rugby, allowing the organization to retain and use the funds. Billion Law's effective representation ensured that USA Rugby could continue its operations and navigate through the bankruptcy process with critical financial support.

‍

Billion Law recently achieved a significant victory in the bankruptcy case involving Lucira Health Inc., successfully reopening the auction for Lucira's assets after concerns were raised by Pearsanta Inc., the backup bidder. The auction initially awarded Pfizer Inc. the winning bid for Lucira’s assets, despite Pearsanta offering a higher bid. Pearsanta, represented by Billion Law, challenged the auction results, arguing that Pfizer had received preferential treatment.

In a formal objection, Pearsanta’s attorney, Mark Billion, noted that Pearsanta’s bid of $23.8 million, including $13.4 million in cash, was not only higher than Pfizer’s but also offered better terms. Despite this, Lucira opted to accept Pfizer’s $21.2 million offer, which initially included only $5 million in cash and was later revised to potentially include as much as $12 million. Lucira’s financial advisor, Jeffrey Nerland, explained that although Pearsanta’s bid was higher, Pfizer’s “significantly superior financial capacity” made Pfizer’s offer more likely to close.

The unsecured creditors committee backed Pfizer’s bid, arguing it was the “best bid” under the circumstances. However, it acknowledged that Pfizer’s offer brought in as little as $5 million in cash, which led to Pearsanta’s challenge.

Despite these challenges, Billion Law secured a ruling reopening the auction.

‍

Billion Law recently served as lead debtor’s counsel in the successful restructuring of Sensitive Home, Inc., a company renowned for its environmentally safe cleaning products. Facing significant financial challenges, Sensitive Home turned to Billion Law for comprehensive legal guidance through a complex restructuring process, resulting in a swift and effective turnaround.

As lead counsel, Billion Law spearheaded the renegotiation of Sensitive Home’s secured lender regime, which was critical in stabilizing the company’s financial position while preserving valuable lender relationships. In addition, the firm successfully restructured substantial unsecured debts, ensuring that creditors received equitable resolutions that allowed Sensitive Home to continue operations.

A crucial component of the restructuring involved revising several key leases, which significantly reduced overhead and provided greater operational flexibility. Billion Law also facilitated the resolution of employee claims, navigating sensitive issues to protect the company’s workforce and ensure compliance.

The crowning achievement was the successful confirmation of Sensitive Home’s reorganization plan under Subchapter V of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, a streamlined process designed for small businesses. The confirmation was achieved in under six months—a testament to Billion Law’s strategic planning and execution.

Through Billion Law’s leadership, Sensitive Home, Inc. emerged from its restructuring more resilient and better equipped to continue its mission of providing environmentally safe products to consumers. This case underscores Billion Law’s expertise in debtor representation and its ability to deliver timely and effective solutions in high-stakes financial restructurings.

‍

Billion Law recently achieved a notable outcome representing Twin Willows, LLC in a highly litigated dispute involving the sale of approximately 81.9 acres of land in Smyrna, Delaware. This complex case clarified the role of *Lis Pendens* in Delaware property law and highlighted Billion Law’s expertise in navigating intricate real estate and litigation issues.

At the core of the dispute, Twin Willows had filed a lis pendens—a legal notice of a pending lawsuit affecting the title to real estate—during the course of litigation. Following a master's final report denying Twin Willows’ request for specific performance of a sales agreement, the trustee for the property sought damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under Delaware’s lis pendens statute, arguing that Twin Willows’ filing caused unnecessary delays in the sale process.

Billion Law effectively countered these claims, demonstrating that the court had previously determined there was no bad faith in Twin Willows' actions and that the lis pendens was not filed for improper purposes. As a result, the court denied the trustee’s motion for damages and attorneys’ fees under the lis pendens statute. The court further clarified that without evidence of harassment or unnecessary delays, awarding such fees was unwarranted.

In addition, Billion Law ensured that only limited court costs under Rule 54(d) were imposed on Twin Willows, protecting its client from excessive financial burdens. This case serves as a key example of Billion Law’s ability to provide effective legal solutions in high-stakes property disputes and its deep understanding of Delaware’s real estate and litigation landscape.

‍

Billion Law recently played a crucial role in securing a significant distribution for its client in the In Re Kalos bankruptcy case. Representing one of the largest creditors in the matter, Billion Law’s skilled negotiation and advocacy during mediation led to a very favorable outcome for the client.

The case centered on Kalos Capital, Inc., a holding company with limited assets, mostly illiquid investments. As part of the bankruptcy proceedings, the company faced challenges from multiple creditors seeking recovery from the limited pool of available assets. Billion Law, representing its client, Ms. Jensen, successfully advocated for her claim, highlighting her substantial losses caused by Kalos’ mismanagement of her investments.

Ultimately, Billion Law’s strategic efforts in the mediation process led to a positive resolution, ensuring that their client received one of the largest distributions from the estate. This outcome highlights Billion Law’s expertise in navigating complex bankruptcy cases and protecting the financial interests of their clients.

‍

Billion Law recently achieved a significant success in recovering client funds in a highly complex, multi-jurisdictional matter that spanned several states and involved both state and federal courts. The case presented numerous legal challenges, requiring Billion Law to navigate complex legal questions, strategic considerations tied to other pending litigation, and factual uncertainties due to limited records.

The case arose from a series of transactions and disputes that involved multiple parties, each located in different states, which led to legal proceedings in various courts across the country. This multi-state dimension created a web of legal questions concerning jurisdiction, applicable laws, and the coordination of various court proceedings. Billion Law’s strategic approach ensured that these complex issues were carefully managed, keeping the focus on the ultimate goal of recovering the client’s funds.

One of the primary challenges involved reconciling the legal strategy in this case with other pending litigation involving the same parties. This required a deep understanding of how each proceeding could impact the broader strategy, including the potential risks and rewards of various legal approaches. Billion Law’s ability to anticipate and address these concerns allowed for a tailored strategy that maximized the client’s recovery.

Further complicating the case were factual questions that were difficult to answer due to limited records. Billion Law diligently worked to piece together the available information, using creative legal arguments and investigatory techniques to fill in the gaps.

Through meticulous strategy and legal expertise, Billion Law successfully recovered the client’s funds, showcasing its ability to handle complex, multi-jurisdictional cases involving both legal and factual intricacies.

‍

Billion Law mourns the passing of Judge Walter K. Stapleton, who passed away  at the age of 90. A towering figure in the Delaware bar and a man of remarkable intellect and character, Judge Stapleton leaves behind a profound legacy. The firm’s founder had the honor of clerking for Judge Stapleton and often speaks of the indelible impact he had on their personal and professional journey.

Judge Stapleton’s wisdom, kindness, and leadership will be deeply missed. The thoughts and prayers of everyone at Billion Law are with his family and loved ones during this time of loss.

For a reflection on Judge Stapleton’s life and career, we encourage you to read Judge "The Game by the Rules": An Appreciation of the Judicial Philosophy and Method of Walter K. Stapleton, written by William T. Allen, Leo E. Strine and Leonard P. Stark.

‍