(United States Third Circuit) - Vacated a ruling allocating the costs of cleaning up a contaminated manufacturing site. A successor company brought a contribution action against its predecessor company seeking to recover the costs it had incurred when government regulators forced it to remediate the site. The district court arrived at a percentage method of splitting the costs between the two companies, but on appeal the Third Circuit reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

(United States Third Circuit) - Affirmed the dismissal of a lawsuit brought by investors of a bankrupt company who claimed they were entitled to dividend payments. The investors, who purchased their shares with notice of the bankruptcy, claimed that the company and several of its officers were liable for failing to pay them a dividend they were owed. Rejecting their arguments, the Third Circuit held that the investors were bound by the reorganization plan, including its releases of liability.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Held that former board members of a corporation lacked corporate authority when they filed a Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition. The board members argued that they had the proper authority to file the bankruptcy petition even though a receiver appointed by a state court already had removed them from the board of directors. Rejecting their argument, the Ninth Circuit affirmed dismissal of the bankruptcy petition.

(United States Second Circuit) - Affirmed a judgment in a dispute between two creditors of an agricultural produce company that filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy. One of the creditors was another produce company that did business with the debtor. Because the goods were perishable agricultural commodities, the case involved the federal Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed the dismissal of an appeal in a matter concerning the bankruptcy of a shipbuilding company. The bankruptcy court's approval of the sale of certain key estate assets was the final word on the subject, when the objector did not obtain a stay of that ruling.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - In a lien contest among creditors of a bankrupt commercial farm, held that a bank's lien outranked the agricultural liens of nurseries that sold the farm trees and shrubs. Affirmed a summary judgment ruling.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Held that a shareholder could not seek statutory damages from a creditor after helping a debtor company defend against an involuntary bankruptcy petition. Affirmed the decision below.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - In a lawsuit that a bankruptcy trustee brought against officers and directors of the debtor company and others who allegedly participated in a securities fraud scheme, affirmed a jury verdict in part and reversed it in part.

(United States Second Circuit) - Held that judicial estoppel did not bar a Sarbanes-Oxley Act whistleblower retaliation claim. The issue centered on whether the plaintiff employee had attempted to conceal his whistleblower lawsuit from the court in his bankruptcy proceeding. Vacated a dismissal in relevant part.

(United States Supreme Court) - Held that a bankrupt company's rejection of a trademark licensing agreement did not deprive its licensee of the rights to use the trademark. The U.S. Supreme Court interpreted Section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code, which enables a debtor to reject any executory contract, meaning a contract that neither party has finished performing. Justice Kagan delivered the opinion of the 8-1 Court.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - In the bankruptcy proceeding of an investment business that had committed securities fraud, revived some of the bankruptcy trustee's claims against individuals and entities that referred potential investors in exchange for sales commissions. Reversed a dismissal in relevant part.

(US 3rd Circuit) - No. 19-2522

(United States Fourth Circuit) - Vacating a district court's denial of a motion for attorney fees and remanding for consideration under the appropriate legal and evidentiary standards in a Lanham Act case in a suit relating to internet domain registry services because the district court required clear and convincing evidence of an exceptional case, rather than the Act's preponderance of the evidence standard.

(United States Fourth Circuit) - Affirming the district court's determination that a hospital did not fail to pay funds owed Medicate for the treatment of the plaintiff's mother, despite being a bit late in their payment, meaning that the plaintiff was not entitled to double damages under the Medicare Secondary Payer Act.

(United States Fourth Circuit) - Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded. Plaintiff was shot several times during an encounter with the police. The police were responding to an emergency call that plaintiff had committed burglary and assault. Plaintiff sued alleging excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment and that the police conduct violated Maryland law. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants holding that the police were enjoyed qualified immunity and no constitutional violations occurred. The appellate court held that the police violated plaintiffs Fourth Amendment rights, but that the police had qualified immunity. Because the trial court did not address the violation of the Fourth Amendment rights under Maryland law the case is remanded.

(United States Fourth Circuit) - Affirmed in part; vacated in part. US military personnel, civilian contractors and surviving family members brought suit for injuries allegedly caused by defendant’s waste management and water services across Iraq and Afghanistan. The district court concluded that the suit implicated a political question that was barred and that the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) preempts the Servicemember’s claims. The appellate court stated that federal courts will not examine cases involving political questions because that would encroach on prerogatives of Congress and the President, Baker v. Carr, 369 US 186. Because the case was barred as a political question, the issue of the FTCA preemption need not have been decided. The appellate court vacated the FTCA ruling and affirmed the political question ruling.

(United States Fourth Circuit) - Vacated the denial of an exemption from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's renewable fuel standard program. A small refinery sought an extension of its exemption from EPA's renewable fuel standard program, which requires refineries and other facilities to allocate a certain percentage of their fuel production to renewable fuels. When the EPA denied the request for an extension, the refinery petitioned the Fourth Circuit, which concluded that the EPA's decision was arbitrary and capricious. The panel therefore vacated the EPA's denial and remanded for further proceedings.

(United States Fourth Circuit) - Affirmed an order enjoining the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services from enforcing a Medicaid reimbursement policy that was set forth in a Frequently Asked Questions document. The plaintiff, a hospital, contended that the reimbursement policy was not validly promulgated because there was no formal rulemaking as required by the Administrative Procedure Act. Agreeing, the Fourth Circuit held that the FAQ document was insufficient and that notice-and-comment rulemaking was necessary.

(United States Fourth Circuit) - Affirmed that a school district did not deprive a former student of his rights under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. The student claimed he should have been identified as a candidate for special education and that the school district failed to provide him a free appropriate public education. While agreeing that the school district had committed a procedural violation of the Act, the Fourth Circuit agreed with the district court that the violation did not actually deprive the student of a free appropriate public education.

(United States Fourth Circuit) - Vacated federal agency decisions approving construction of a natural gas pipeline through a national forest. Several environmental groups challenged the Bureau of Land Management's and U.S. Forest Service's rulings allowing the pipeline to be built. On a petition for review, the Fourth Circuit agreed with the environmental groups that the federal agencies failed to fully comply with the National Environmental Policy Act, the Mineral Leasing Act, and the National Forest Management Act, and therefore the appeals court vacated and remanded to the agencies for further proceedings.

(United States Fourth Circuit) - Held that the United States should be substituted as a party defendant in a lawsuit in which two defendants were tobacco industry businesspeople who had agreed to perform undercover work for the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. The question before the Fourth Circuit was whether the United States should be substituted as a party defendant. The panel held that the answer was yes, and thus reversed the district court's ruling on the matter.

Since 2016, Well of Night have been restlessly building their sound into a rare blend of riff-heavy, energetic and melodic...

The post WELL OF NIGHT Offer Seering, Melodic Black Metal Song "Doctrine of Futility and Human Extinction" appeared first on Metal Injection.

(US 2nd Circuit) - August Term 2018 Docket No. 18-1086

We understand why unrest is bubbling among those who are unemployed and entrepreneurs who could lose their businesses. But the alternative to stay-at-home orders is allowing the highly contagious new coronavirus to rip through our communities.

(United States Second Circuit) - Reversed. The court reversed a district court denial of the City's and grant of the company's motions for summary judgment in a case involving a ban on advertisements in Uber and Lyft vehicles because the limited taxicab exception allows the ban on advertisements to survive First Amendment scrutiny.

(United States Second Circuit) - Vacated and remanded. A complaint alleging claims for forced labor and human trafficking in violation of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act was improperly dismissed because the plaintiff plausibly stated claims.

(United States Second Circuit) - Affirmed. Plaintiffs appealed a dismissal of their claims that Facebook unlawfully assisted Hamas in terrorist attacks in Israel. The court affirmed the claims were barred by a federal law that prohibits treating one provider of an interactive computer service as the publisher of information provided by another.

(United States Second Circuit) - Affirmed. Financial institutions that hold junior notes issued by the defendant, as trustee, appeal the grant of summary judgement. The district court erred in holding that ICA § 47(b) does not give rise to a private right of action. However, the district court ordered distribution of the assets of the trust according to the terms of the trust’s governing indenture, so summary judgment affirmed.

(United States Second Circuit) - Affirmed. Collective bargaining agreement contains unambiguous language vesting welfare benefits and there is a sufficiently serious question as to whether retirees were entitled to lifetime medical coverage. District court’s grant of summary judgement in favor of union retirees is affirmed.

(United States Second Circuit) - Affirmed. The district court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege that the defendants knowingly aided or abetted November, 2005 attacks in Jordan.

(United States Second Circuit) - Affirmed in part, vacated and remanded in part. Finding no clear error in the district court’s determination that Defendant’s trademark infringement was willful, the award of gross profits was proper. However, the question of attorney’s fees and pre-judgement interest is remanded for further proceedings.

(United States Second Circuit) - Vacated and remanded. Finding the promise to arbitrate in the franchise application was supported by adequate consideration, the panel vacates the district court’s denial of DAI’s motion to compel arbitration and remands for further proceedings.

(United States Second Circuit) - Affirmed. Finding the plaintiff failed to name a single instance of infringement or breach of the terms of his licensing agreement with the stock photo company from which Scholastica obtained his photos, the panel affirms the district court’s dismissal.

(United States Second Circuit) - Affirming the district court's grant of summary judgment that although Apple and a group of major publishers committed an unlawful antitrust conspiracy there was no antitrust injury that resulted.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirming the district court's dismissal of an antitrust claim alleging anti-competitive activities engaged in by a labor union and a multi-employer collective bargaining association, holding that nonstatutory exemption, the Noerrr-Pennington doctrine, and Sherman Act immunized defendants' activities.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Remanding a case in which a Miami retirement trust obtained the stock of a company and later complained of false statements that the district court found to be puffery, forward looking, appropriately cautioned, without knowledge of their falsity, or protected by the safe harbor provision of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act but the panel found that many of these exceptions did not apply in the given situation.

(United States Second Circuit) - Vacating the district court's determination that a carpenters union was entitled to summary judgment as to Sherman Act Antitrust charges, but affirmed summary judgment for them as to unfair labor practices charges in a case where the union used subcontracting to include ironworking in their activities because the union did not qualify for the non-statutory exemption to antitrust liability, but qualified for the construction industry proviso.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirming that, for customs classification purposes, acrylamido tertiary butyl sulfonic acid is not an amide, but is an amide derivative as defined by the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States.

(United States Second Circuit) - Affirming the denial of the North American Soccer League's motion for preliminary injunction seeking Division II designation pending the resolution of its antitrust case against the United States Soccer Federation because they had failed to demonstrate a clear likelihood of success on the merits of their claim.

(United States Third Circuit) - Affirming a district court dismissal of a case brought by numerous taxi associations seeking to prevent Uber from taking their business because Uber's conduct didn't arise to an antitrust violation, attempted monopoly, or other unfair business activity, even if it is killing the old taxicab businesses.

(United States Fourth Circuit) - Affirming the grant of summary judgment to a group of table saw manufacturers sued under antitrust laws because the acts upon which the complaint was based occurred prior to 2002, the claims expired in 2006, and the suit was not filed until 2014, refusing to apply the equitable doctrine of fraudulent concealment because the plaintiff was found to have had notice, at latest, by 2003.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Defendant appealed from a judgement of the US Court of International Trade in favor of plaintiff. The Court of Appeals held that the Court of International Trade lacked jurisdiction to hear plaintiffs claims and reversed the judgement. The Appeals court concluded that jurisdiction under 28 USC section 1581 may not be invoked until administrative remedies are exhausted.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed in part and vacated in part the dismissal of antitrust and state law claims of golf caddies who participated in the PGA Tour, who were required to wear bibs containing advertisements. The court reasoned that the caddies consented to wearing the bibs when they filled out the participation form and that they had not alleged plausible product markets to support antitrust claims. The court, however, vacated the decision to deny leave to amend caddies’ complaint.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Reinstated an antitrust claim against a wholly owned natural gas subsidiary that said it had no knowledge of its parent company's alleged price-fixing scheme that had pumped up the price of gas. The subsidiary argued that it could not be held liable for violating Wisconsin antitrust law because it was not involved in anything unlawful that its parent company may have done. Unpersuaded, the Ninth Circuit emphasized that a parent and a wholly owned subsidiary always act as a single enterprise whenever they engage in coordinated activity, and thus reversed the grant of summary judgment to the subsidiary.

(United States Second Circuit) - Affirmed that magazine publishers did not violate antitrust laws by trying to drive a wholesaler out of business. The wholesaler delivered magazines to retail stores and it alleged that when it tried to impose a surcharge on the publishers in 2009, they conspired to boycott and drive the wholesaler out of business. On appeal, the Second Circuit found that the wholesaler had presented insufficient evidence of a boycott scheme to survive summary judgment. The panel also affirmed summary judgment against the publishers' counterclaims.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Held that an antitrust lawsuit was barred by the act-of-state doctrine. The plaintiff corporations alleged that a Mexican-government-owned salt production company engaged in an antitrust conspiracy with a Japanese company. Affirming dismissal of the complaint, the Ninth Circuit held that the lawsuit was fundamentally a challenge to Mexico's determination about the exploitation of its own natural resources and thus was barred by the act-of-state doctrine, which precludes adjudication of the sovereign acts of other nations in U.S. courts.

(United States Third Circuit) - Reinstated a medical device seller's claim that certain Blue Cross Blue Shield health insurance companies violated antitrust law by unreasonably restraining trade in the national market for outpatient cardiac monitors. The seller of a cardiac monitoring device contended that it was shut out of the market because the defendants conspired to deny insurance coverage for its product to shield themselves from patient demand for it. Holding that the seller stated a claim under section 1 of the Sherman Act, the Third Circuit reversed dismissal of the complaint and remanded for further proceedings.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - In a case involving states' power to regulate liquor sales, held that the plaintiffs stated a claim that Illinois unlawfully refused to license out-of-state retailers to ship liquor to consumers in the state, in violation of the Commerce Clause and Privileges and Immunities Clause. Reversed a dismissal and remanded.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - In a healthcare antitrust case, affirmed a protective order that said certain confidential business documents belonging to a non-party health insurer should be unsealed (but redacted) if and when they are filed on the public docket. The non-party sought stronger confidentiality protections.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Revived a RICO lawsuit brought by importers of garlic who alleged that rival importers had conspired to harm their businesses. Reversed a dismissal in relevant part and remanded.