(United States DC Circuit) - Dismissed. The Wehrum Memo relating to air quality was not a final agency action, so the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear complaints about its contents.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversed order disqualifying attorneys. The appeals court held that no evidence had been presented that Plaintiff's attorneys possessed confidential attorney-client privileged information relevant to the suit and that if there was a conflict other lawyers in the law firm could represent Plaintiff.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. A lawsuit relating to who should pay for the cleanup of a contaminated site was dismissed because the limitations period had expired by the time the plaintiff filed suit.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. Plaintiff challenged a trial court ruling that a proposed development failed to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act. The appeals court found that the trial court did not err in concluding that that the project failed to comply with the CEQA requirement of an accurate, stable, and finite project description.

(United States DC Circuit) - Denied, remanded, and vacated. Challenges to the Environmental Protection Agency's 2015 revisions to the primary and secondary national ambient air quality standards for ozone were denied except with respect to secondary ozone, which was remanded for reconsideration and the grandfathering provision, which was vacated.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed. The district court properly dismissed a suit brought by a man whose state court award in a Takings Clause suit against state officials was unsatisfying to him. The State was entitled to sovereign immunity.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. Injunctions against the state preventing it from implementing a plan to purge voter rolls based on third party information rather than directly contacting voters was affirmed because plaintiff organizations established standing and the decision was not an abuse of discretion.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Vacated and remanded. The district court dismissal of a suit for failure to exhaust remedies was vacated because the claims of discrimination had been exhausted before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Vacated. The district court erred in finding that plaintiffs lacked standing under Delaware law to bring a direct action against investment advisors instead of initiating a derivative action. They only need to plead an arguable position that they were not relegated to derivative actions.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. The County of Los Angeles successfully brought a conservatorship action under the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act that allows involuntary detention of persons who are dangerous or gravely disabled due to mental disorder. Conservatee appealed. The appeals court found no reversible error.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. The district court properly dismissed complaint by Cook County residents raising Second Amendment claims challenging a ban on assault rifles because the issue had already been addressed by the court.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Reversed and remanded. The act of handing a complaint to a prison official fulfilled the prison mailbox rule regarding the date of filing.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. D.C. appeals appointment of a conservator under the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act on the grounds that she was not advised of her right to a jury trial, was not afforded an evidentiary hearing, was medicated without her consent and had ineffective assistance of counsel. The appeals court found no reversible error, but cautioned the trial court to state its findings as to the factors set out in Riese v. St. Mary’s Hospital & Medical Center (1987) 209 Cal.App.3d 1303.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. M.M. appeals appointment of a conservator under the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act on the grounds that his trial did not begin within 25 days of his jury demand. The appeals court held that M.M. forfeited the contention because the delay was due to his own counsel’s requests to accommodate his schedule.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In an SEC enforcement action arising from the activities of a company described as a "sham incubator for startup companies", summary judgment ruling against defendant is affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part where: 1) the district court correctly found that defendant was an underwriter under section 2(11) of the Securities Act of 1933, and therefore not exempt from the the Act's registration requirements; 2) it did not err in ordering that defendant disgorge all profits, with interest, he obtained from certain transactions; but 3) genuine issues of material fact precluded summary judgment as to the imposition of certain civil sanctions.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In a contract and tort action arising from the parties' execution of a Stock Purchase Agreement (SPA), summary judgment for defendant on limitations grounds is reversed where a provision within the SPA permitting the representations and warranties of the parties to survive closing did not unambiguously state the parties' intent to contractually reduce the applicable California statute of limitation to one year.

(United States Sixth Circuit) - In a class action securities violation case, dismissal of the action is affirmed where: 1) plaintiffs failed to allege a misrepresentation or omission of material fact regarding claims arising from a spin-off; 2) plaintiffs failed to allege a strong inference of scienter regarding claims arising from a Restatement filed with the SEC; 3) plaintiffs failed to allege a strong inference of scienter on the part of defendant-CPA firm, and thus dismissal of a section 10(b) claim was appropriate; and 4) dismissal of plaintiffs' section 20(a) claim was proper as there was no predicate violation of the securities laws.

(United States DC Circuit) - Denial of the FTC's request for a preliminary injunction against the merger of the Whole Foods and Wild Oats supermarket chains is reversed and remanded where: 1) the case was not moot despite the merger's having already occurred; 2) the district court did not abuse its discretion by considering the market definition proposed by the FTC, in which Whole Foods and Wild Oats compete in the "premium, natural, and organic supermarkets" (PNOS) market, not against all supermarkets; 3) the FTC met the threshold requirements for obtaining a preliminary injunction by demonstrating a likelihood of success on its claim that the two supermarkets did compete in the PNOS market; and 4) the district court was best positioned to balance the FTC's showing against the equities weighing against an injunction. (Amended and reissued opinion)

(Supreme Court of Delaware) - In a statutory appraisal action arising from an acquisition by merger, an order modifying the appraisal opinion is reversed where the dispute had become moot by operation of a settlement agreement, and the purported modification of the appraisal opinion therefore had no legal effect.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - In plaintiffs' consolidated securities action against defendants alleging fraud in connection with a merger, the judgment of the district court is affirmed where it did not abuse its discretion: 1) in dismissing the case with prejudice as the plaintiffs had a number of opportunities to craft a complaint that complied with the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act; 2) in denying plaintiffs' motion to vacate the judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e); and 3) in denying the plaintiffs' motion to file an amended complaint.

(United States Third Circuit) - In an adversary proceeding brought by the trustee of a corporation and the subsidiaries it had acquired in related leveraged buy-outs, seeking to recover payments the shareholders of the acquired corporations had received for their shares on the grounds that the payments to them had been fraudulent transfers avoidable under Delaware law and the Bankruptcy Code, grant of shareholders' motion to dismiss is affirmed as, in accordance with prior case law, the payments were exempt settlement payments under section 546(e).

(United States Second Circuit) - In an action for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and tortious interference with contract based on defendant's refusal to allow certain of its noteholders to convert their notes to cash and stock following the acquisition of defendant, dismissal of the complaint is affirmed where, under the express terms of the indenture agreement, the acquirer was not a "Public Acquirer" because its securities that were traded on the New York Stock Exchange were not its ordinary shares.

(United States Second Circuit) - In a securities class action alleging that defendants fraudulently accounted for a transaction, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) plaintiffs failed to prove loss causation because their expert's testimony did not suffice to draw the requisite causal connection between the information in the article at issue and the fraud alleged in the complaint; and 2) the generalized investor reaction of concern causing a temporary share price decline was far too tenuously connected -- indeed, by a metaphoric thread -- to the transaction to support liability.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Judgment of the Tax Court that plaintiff could not deduct from its taxable income either the amount it paid to the states or the legal expenses that it had incurred in the litigation, involving the acquisition of Blue Cross Blue Shield insurance companies, is affirmed as, under the application of the "origin of the claim" doctrine, costs incurred in defending the lawsuit were capital expenditures and so could not be deducted as ordinary and necessary business expenses.

(United States DC Circuit) - In a petition for review of the Surface Transportation Board's approval of the acquisition of certain railroads by another railroad, the petition is denied where: 1) one petitioner lacked standing because, if the board's decision were overturned, the construction authorization would not be affected and no new environmental impact statement would be required for the area; and 2) the board did not abuse its discretion in approving the transaction.

(United States First Circuit) - In this case, plaintiff-software-company hired defendant-bank to assist it in finding an acquisition partner. The acquisition partner later was found to have fraudulently overstated its earnings, and bankruptcy ensued for the merged company, after which the present litigation followed, alleging various common-law claims including gross negligence, intentional and negligent misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty, and unfair or deceptive acts in violation of Mass. Ben. Laws ch. 93A. Judgment finding defendant not liable on all claims is affirmed, where: 1) defendant's conduct, even if sloppy and unforthcoming, was not unfair or deceptive, the factual findings are supported by the record, and the court correctly applied the ch. 93A legal standard to those findings; and 2) there were no other errors, and even if there were, those errors were harmless.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirming a district court conclusion in a putative securities class action relating to a corporate merger that the Securities Exchange Act does not create a private right of action for shareholders confronted with a tender offer and dismissing the complaint as to one defendant, who was not a proper defendant, holding that the Exchange Act requires a showing of negligence rather than scienter for the claims brought, and remanding for the district court to reconsider the defense motion to dismiss under the negligence standard.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that two merging companies both breached an asset purchase agreement. The buyer and seller each argued that the other party had breached their agreement. On appeal, the Fourth Appellate District held that the seller's breach of certain post-closing obligations did not excuse the buyer from its obligation to pay the full purchase price, because these covenants were independent. The appeals court therefore reversed denial of the seller's JNOV motion.

(United States Third Circuit) - Held that a company that entered into an unconsummated merger agreement was not entitled to payment of a $275 million termination fee. The proposed merger had been approved by a bankruptcy court because one of the parties was in Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The Third Circuit held that the bankruptcy court did not err in narrowing the circumstances under which the termination fee would be triggered, resulting ultimately in no fee being paid.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed a judgment after trial in a contractual dispute between two industrial supply companies. The case involved the alleged breach of their asset purchase agreement.

Each Playlist Is Categorized By GENRE So You Can Easily Contact The Curators

Fresh Off Their GRAMMY Nomination For Their CD, Teach Me Thy Statutes,the PaTRAM Institute Will Record Their Next CD In Saratov, Russia This August.

ProgStock Festival Was Founded To Give Artists And Fans In The Genre Of Progressive Rock A Place To Play

The 'Rise Above - ON TOUR' Marketing Program Is An Innovative, Unique And Low Cost Opportunity To Place Your Local Performance In Front Of Committed Music Fans And Store Staff Across All Your Markets

Vancouver-based Singer-songwriter And Recording Artist Nat Jay Releases Electro Pop Song "Sleep"

NJ Rock Band Triple Addiction Scores A Guitar Endorsement And Books Some Big Shows.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that a former deputy constable may not proceed with his whistleblower retaliation and equal-protection claims. Some were barred by res judicata and others by qualified immunity. Affirmed a dismissal.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed as modified. Defendant failed to comply with an administrative order for various violations of county codes on his property. County filed suit and was awarded penalties, costs and attorney fees, but at a lower rate than amount ordered by administrative court. Appeals court modified assessment of penalties to the higher rate.

(United States Supreme Court) - Vacated and remanded. Plaintiffs as voters in North Carolina and Maryland filed suit challenging congressional districting maps as unconstitutional partisan gerrymanders. The district court ruled in favor of plaintiffs. The US Supreme Court held that partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions that are beyond the reach of the federal courts.

(United States DC Circuit) - Remanded for dismissal. The Electronic Privacy Information Center sued following a US Department of Commerce announcement that citizenship would be among the questions included in the 2020 census. EPIC sought to enjoin the question because they claim their members were entitled to a Privacy Impact Assessment. However, EPIC lacked standing to proceed with the suit.

(United States DC Circuit) - Petition for review denied. The EPA did not act contrary to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act in adopting a Transfer-Based Exclusion because hazardous materials are not necessarily "discarded" when they are transferred from a generator to a reclaimer along with payment. The policy was not arbitrary or capricious.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. Plaintiff sued to prevent Defendant from violating city zoning laws to construct a solar energy project. Defendant claimed an exemption under Gov. Code, section 53091 and 53096. Court found that exemption does not apply and that there was no finding that no feasible alternative was available.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversed. Plaintiff brought a petition for writ of mandate claiming the fee charged by Defendant, County of Alameda, for copies of official records violated Government Code section 27366. Trial court granted petition and issued a preliminary injunction against Defendant and awarded attorney fees to Plaintiff. Appeals court found that the County did not abuse its discretion in determining the fee it charged or that section 27366 was violated.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversed. Plaintiff, a rental property owner, filed suit against Defendant, a rent control board, to prevent certain properties from being subject to rent control. The trial court agreed with Plaintiff, but the appeals court held that the rent board did not have the authority to exempt rental units from rent control under the Santa Monica City Charter.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversed. Plaintiff pled no contest to a felony charge of child abuse for injuries to his infant son, but filed this suit against Defendant, Fire Department, for the emergency medical aid that allegedly led to the death of his infant son. Defendant filed a summary judgment motion that was granted by the trial court on the grounds of government immunity. The appeals court held that government immunity applies to situations where fire fighters are supplying firefighting services, not emergency medical services.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Granted. The motion to transfer a lawsuit involving the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission to the Tenth Circuit was granted because appeals of some agency rulings must be filed in only one court of appeals, typically the DC Circuit.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversed and remanded. The trial court sustained the Defendant’s demurrer without leave to amend to Plaintiff’s third amended complaint. The appellate court held that Plaintiff made a sufficient showing for leave to amend and directed Plaintiff to amend their complaint consistent with this opinion.

(Supreme Court of California) - Reversed. A dental practice contended that the City of Oroville was liable under an inverse condemnation claim because of damage suffered when raw sewage began overflowing from toilets, sinks, and building drains. The lower court found that the city was liable. The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that the dentist could not prove that the damage was substantially caused by the design, construction or maintenance of the sewer system and that the damage could have been prevented if dentists had installed a legally required backwater valve.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Partially affirmed, remanded. A Texas ban on public corporations obtaining package store permits did not violate Equal Protection rights, but the district court erred in finding a discriminatory nature and burden imposed by the public corporation ban.

Kindred Spirits Met When Japanese Noise Legend Merzbow Got Together In The Studio With Fellow Countryman Keiji Haino And Drummer Balazs Pandi For A New Recording On RareNoiseRecords