Welcome to the March 2024 edition of the ACIC Private Notes!

This edition brings you:

• An amazing list of things to do while in Chicago this April, created by Charles C. Calloway, Jr. and Rebecca Fabian (Chapman & Cutler);
• The regular ACIC Committee Reports, compiled by Danielle Maksimow (Norton Rose Fulbright); and
• Recent case law summaries from New England, prepared by Kevin Braun (Morgan Lewis).

ACIC Spring Investment Forum Reminder

As a reminder, we look forward to seeing you all at the 2024 ACIC Spring Investment Forum on April 11^th and 12^th at the Four Seasons in Chicago!  You can find details about registration here.

Things to Do in April

As you prepare for your trip to Chicago for the 2024 Spring Investment Forum, the College wanted to put together a guide to some amazing events and attractions that are happening in Chicago that week. There is no place like Chicago in the springtime, so why not extend your trip for the weekend!

Whether you’re interested in attending one of the leading international art fairs, laughing at the iconic Second City, or dining at one of the top restaurants, Chicago has it all! Click here for a full list of activities and restaurants that you may want to work into your trip.

Committee Reports

Curious about what each of the ACIC Committees does? Interested in getting involved? Click here for an overview of the purpose, goals, and current initiatives of each of the College’s Committees, and to find out who to contact to learn more.

Recent Case Law Summaries

Updates from New England

In Bank of New York Mellon v. Gosset, 307 A.3d 861, 863–64 (R.I. 2024), the Supreme Court of Rhode Island held that joint tenants who did not sign a promissory note were not liable for the balance on the note, but that the payment default on the note constituted a default under a mortgage they did execute, which was enforceable by a foreclosure sale of the property. Click here to learn more.

In Centerplan Constr. Co. LLC v. City of Hartford, 2023 WL 6121116 (Conn. Super. Ct. Sept. 11, 2023), a court in Connecticut held that a construction company under a bonded contract retained a legal interest in its cause of action under the contract despite the assignment of its rights to a surety bond provider because (1) the assignment was for collateral security and did not deprive the principal of its rights under the contract and (2) the surety, as assignee, authorized the principal’s cause of action.  Click here to learn more.