|
|
|
Business
[08/29]
Help-wanted ad for nanny: `My kids are a pain'
[08/20]
NY restaurant uses 1933 prices; Steaks: 90 cents
More...
Financial Services
[08/15]
CIC Teams With CSC to Offer Cutting Edge eSignature Solution to Banking Industry
[08/15]
NIBC Bank Reports EUR 110 Million Profit After Tax From Continuing Operations in the First Half of 2008
More...
Litigation
[08/15]
Court says copyrights apply even for free software
[08/15]
Trump to buy McMahon's home, let him live there
More...
Securities
[08/15]
Merrill facing NY lawsuit over securities sale
[08/15]
J.C. Penney's 2Q profits fall 36 percent
More...
Mergers and Acquisitions
[08/15]
GEOCAN Energy Inc. Announces Second Quarter 2008 Results
[08/15]
Republic again rejects Waste Management buyout bid
More...
Case Summaries
Banking Law
[08/26]
Mamot Feed Lot & Trucking v. Hobson
In a class action raising federal usury and antitying claims against a bank, its holding company, and various shareholders, officers, and employees of the bank, following the criminal indictment of the bank's president for defrauding the bank of nearly one million dollars, dismissal of the claim is affirmed where: 1) as sections 85 and 86 do not apply to state-chartered banks, the district court properly dismissed those claims brought under the National Bank Act for want of jurisdiction; 2) the district court properly dismissed a claim under 12 U.S.C. section 1831d for failure to state a claim; and 3) the complaint provided absolutely no facts to support an illegal tying claim.
[08/26]
JCB, Inc. v. Union Planters Bank, N.A.
In an action against defendant-bank seeking a declaratory judgment and damages for trespass and conversion for unilateral removal and sale of equipment which had been purchased by their debtor-defendant and was subject to their competing security interests, partial summary judgment and awards for plaintiff are affirmed in all respects except for a punitive damage award for trespass which must be remitted to $108,750 on due process grounds.
More...
Commercial Law
[09/04]
Am. Bankers Ass'n v. Lockyer
After remand, in a case interpreting California's Financial Information Privacy Act (FIPA) in light of the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), a ruling that the FRCA entirely preempted FIPA section 4053(b)(1), which restricts the sharing of nonpublic consumer personal information between financial institutions and their affiliates, is reversed and remanded where the preempted portions of FIPA are severable, narrowing FIPA section 4053(b)(1) to exclude consumer report information as defined by the FCRA.
[08/29]
Forest Oil Corp. v. McAllen
In a suit over a commercial contract, denial of a motion to compel arbitration is reversed and remanded where: 1) courts must examine the contract itself and the totality of the surrounding circumstances when determining if a waiver-of-reliance provision is binding; and 2) an unambiguous waiver-of-reliance provision precludes a fraudulent-inducement claim as a matter of law.
More...
Securities Law
[09/02]
Sec. and Exch. Comm'n v. Wolfson
In a civil enforcement action in which the SEC alleged that defendants violated section 10(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 in relation to material misstatements and omissions contained within a public company's periodic financial reports filed with the SEC, summary judgment for plaintiff is affirmed where: 1) the SEC need not establish that specific misstatements or omissions in a financial report can be publicly attributed to an individual defendant in order to prove liability for a violation; 2) because defendants caused misstatements and omissions to be made, and knew that the statements were calculated to reach investors, they could be held liable; 3) fraudulent statements are made "in connection with" the sale of securities when they are reasonably calculated to influence investors, and the misrepresentations are material to an investor's decision to buy or sell the security; and 4) the misstatements or omissions made by defendant occurred "in the offer or sale" of securities.
[08/29]
Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. Levy
Judgment finding defendant liable for multiple acts of solicitation fraud and imposing sanctions against him is affirmed over claims that the court erred in: 1) multiplying the maximum civil monetary penalty for which defendant was liable by the number of "violations" proved at trial, rather than by the number of "counts" alleged in the complaint; 2)imposing a $600,000 civil monetary penalty against defendant; 3) awarding restitution to the extent of defendant's customers' losses; 4) including in the restitution award $30,000 invested by his customers prior to their interactions with defendant; and 5) freezing his assets pending satisfaction of the judgment. The matter is remanded as to district court's award of restitution based on the amount of the victims' losses rather than on defendant's ill-gotten gains.
More...
Workers' Comp
[09/04]
Merritt v. United Parcel Serv.
Decision of Industrial Accident Board to terminate disability plaintiffs paid to claimant by employer is reversed where an admission by employer that claimant's disability was "on-going" was the equivalent of a judicial admission and should have been given conclusive effect.
[09/03]
Padilla v. Pomona College
In an action for personal injury and premises liability arising from a worksite injury during the remodel of a dormitory at defendant Pomona College, grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants is affirmed over claims of error that: 1) defendants had delegated the task of making the worksite safe to others, and that they did not exercise any retained control in a manner that affirmatively contributed to plaintiff's injuries; 2) California Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1973 (Cal-OSHA) regulations did not establish defendants' negligence per se or impose a non-delegable duty on defendants; and 3) that plaintiff's expert testimony lacked foundation.
More...
|
|
|
