(United States Supreme Court) - Vacating and remanding the Second Circuit's support of a motion to dismiss a complaint relating to allegations that Chinese sellers of Vitamin C were engaged in price and quantity fixing of exports to the US because although the Ministry of Commerce of the People's Republic of China averred that the alleged price fixing scheme was actually a pricing regime mandated by the Chinese Government the court was not bound to accord conclusive effect to the foreign government's statements. No law or regulation had been cited and a foreign nation's laws must be proven as facts.

(United States Fourth Circuit) - Affirmed the convictions and sentences for providing support to a foreign terrorist organization following a bench trial where the district court found that the two defendants had collected money to assist a foreign terrorist organization's activities. On appeal, the Fourth Circuit rejected the defendants' argument that the district court, among other things, should have suppressed evidence obtained pursuant to warrants issued under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

(United States Fourth Circuit) - Affirmed a judgment ordering forfeiture to the United States of seven ancient Cypriot coins and eight ancient Chinese coins. A numismatist organization that opposed import restrictions on ancient coins argued that the forfeiture order imposed in connection with international rules on ownership of cultural property was improper. However, the Fourth Circuit rejected each of the organization's contentions of error.

(United States Second Circuit) - Held that a torture victim who had obtained a court judgment against a terrorist organization was not entitled to attach funds from the organization's blocked electronic fund transfers. The torture victim wanted several banks to turn over $36 million to him in order to satisfy a court judgment he had obtained against the terrorist organization in a U.S. court. In a 2-1 decision affirming the district court, the Second Circuit held that the punitively sanctioned organization's blocked assets were not subject to attachment.

(United States First Circuit) - Held that a defendant who won a summary judgment motion could not appeal to challenge unflattering statements found in the trial judge's opinion. In this tort lawsuit brought by a Ugandan gay-rights organization, the defendant religious leader successfully obtained summary judgment by arguing lack of extraterritorial jurisdiction but then appealed. The First Circuit concluded that a winner cannot appeal a judgment merely because there are passages in the court's opinion that displease him or her.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Held that the mother of a U.S. Army service member who was killed by a roadside bomb in Iraq did not state a claim against a Germany-based bank. She claimed that the bank was responsible for her son's death under the Anti-Terrorism Act because it had conspired with Iran by evading U.S. banking sanctions. She contended that the fatal bomb was a signature Iranian weapon. Affirmed that she did not plausibly plead a claim.

(United States Supreme Court) - Held that an international organization did not have as much immunity from lawsuits as it contended it did. The U.S.-headquartered organization was being sued in connection with its financing of a development project in India that allegedly created damaging pollution. The U.S. Supreme Court concluded that the organization's immunity was the same as foreign governments enjoy today under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, in a 7-1 decision interpreting the International Organizations Immunities Act. Chief Justice Roberts delivered the Court's opinion. Justice Kavanaugh took no part in the decision.

(California Court of Appeal) - Refused to quash service of a summons on a company in Hong Kong. The company contended that the service did not adhere to proper Hong Kong procedures and was invalid under international law. Disagreeing, the California Court of Appeal denied writ relief.

(United States Supreme Court) - Addressed a question concerning a method of serving civil process on a foreign state. The Republic of Sudan argued that a mailing must be sent directly to the foreign minister's office in the foreign state, not to the foreign state's U.S. embassy. The U.S. Supreme Court agreed with Sudan's argument in an 8-1 decision. Justice Alito delivered the Court's opinion, in this case arising out of the 2000 bombing of the Navy vessel USS Cole.

(United States DC Circuit) - Held that the district court should not have sua sponte raised a statute of limitations defense to defeat a terrorism lawsuit against the Islamic Republic of Iran, which had failed to make an appearance in the case. The suit alleged that Iran was involved in terrorist bombings in the 1980s and 1990s that killed or injured the plaintiffs' family members. Vacated a dismissal.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - In an insurance dispute, addressed an issue relating to the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards. Held that an insurance contract's conformity-to-statute provision did not negate the agreement to arbitrate.

(United States DC Circuit) - Held that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over the Palestinian Authority and Palestinian Liberation Organization, in this lawsuit brought by the estate of an American schoolteacher who was killed in a terrorist attack in the West Bank. Affirmed a dismissal, finding that the recently enacted Anti-Terrorism Clarification Act of 2018 did not apply here.

(United States DC Circuit) - Held that claimants whose family members were harmed in a terrorist attack may state a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress even if the claimants were not present at the scene of the attack. The case involved District of Columbia tort law and terrorist bombings in East Africa.

(United States Second Circuit) - Held that eleven American families could not revive their lawsuit against the Palestinian Authority and others for various terror attacks in Israel that killed or wounded the plaintiffs or their family members. The plaintiffs relied on the 2018 enactment of the Anti-Terrorism Clarification Act, but the statute did not warrant the extraordinary remedy of recalling the mandate in this already completed case, which had been dismissed on procedural grounds.

(United States Second Circuit) - In a civil RICO case, held that a Chilean national may sue another Chilean national in the United States, because extraterritoriality issues did not bar the suit. The case involved allegations of fraudulent asset transfers from a New York bank account. Reversed a dismissal in relevant part.

(United States Second Circuit) - Affirmed in part, vacated in part, remanded. The District Court erred in granting a petition to have a child returned to his habitual home of Italy under the Hague Convention. Although it was affirmed that Italy was the child's habitual residence if repatriating him would expose the child to a grave risk of harm the district court isn't necessarily bound to return him.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Vacated and remanded. Plaintiff filed a 28 U.S.C. § 1782 application seeking issuance of a subpoena to Google, Inc. for the disclosure of certain subscriber information to assist him in ongoing litigation in England. The district court granted Plaintiff’s application for the information from Google. Concluded that there was doubt whether 1782 could be used in a foreign proceeding and vacated and remanded for further proceedings in the district court.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed. The panel affirmed the district court’s dismissal, on the basis of foreign official immunity, of a wrongful death action brought under the Torture Victim Protection Act.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. Plaintiff sought to enforce a judgment against Defendant in the Senior courts of England and Wales. The issue on appeal was the admissibility of a certain document. The appeals court determined that the document was rightly admitted by the trial court.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed. In the absence of the invalidated extension statute, Plaintiffs’ claims seeking compensation for property taken from Plaintiffs’ ancestors during the Armenian Genocide brought under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act were barred by the statute of limitations for genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity.

(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.

(California Court of Appeal) - Dismissal of an action brought by plaintiff-minority shareholders for "rescissionary damages" based on breach of fiduciary duty by defendants with respect to a proposed buyout of defendant-company, is: 1) affirmed in part, where under Corporations Code section 1312(b), in common control situations, dissenting minority shareholders have the remedy of appraisal unless they elect the remedy of stopping or rescinding the reorganization but they do not have any right to sue for damages for breach of fiduciary duty; but 2) reversed in part and remanded, where plaintiffs have never withdrawn their alternative request to set aside the merger.

(California Court of Appeal) - In an action in which plaintiff alleges that defendants aided and abetted a breach of fiduciary duty, the trial court's judgment for plaintiff and an order denying defendants' motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict is 1) affirmed in part, where: (a) a defendant can be liable for aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty without owing the plaintiff a fiduciary duty; (b) the statute of limitations for aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty is three or four years depending whether the breach is fraudulent or non-fraudulent; (c) the restitutionary remedy of disgorgement is available for aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty; and (d) the measure of restitution for aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty is the net profit attributable to the wrong; but 2) reversed in part and remanded, where defendants are entitled to a new trial on the amount of defendants' unjust enrichment. (Opinion on Rehearing)

(United States Fourth Circuit) - Summary judgment in favor of defendants on plaintiff's claims that he was unlawfully terminated from his employment in retaliation for protected activity under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 is affirmed, where plaintiff failed to sufficiently establish that his alleged protected activities were a contributing factor to his termination.

(United States Third Circuit) - Dismissal of a shareholder action alleging that defendant Board of Directors and the individual members failed to comply with its 2007 plan which would render tax deductible certain incentive compensation paid to the company's executives, which allegedly resulted in the payment of more than $36 million of excess compensation, is affirmed, where: 1) with regard to the derivative suit, plaintiff did not make a pre-suit demand to the Board of Directors or present sufficient allegations explaining why a demand would have been futile; and 2) with regard to the direct suit, federal tax law does not confer voting rights on shareholders not otherwise authorized to vote or affect long-settled Delaware corporation law which permits corporations to issue shares without voting rights, so plaintiff's contention regarding defendant-company's issuance of non-voting shares fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted.

(United States First Circuit) - In an appeal by corporate officers found to be personally responsible for causing their corporation to shirk its payroll tax obligations, the district court grant of summary judgment to the government is affirmed where: 1) there is no genuine issue as to any material fact; and 2) both plaintiffs were responsible persons during the relevant quarters, and each of them acted wilfully in failing to see to the payment of the corporation's overdue and current trust fund taxes.

(United States Second Circuit) - In an action concerning a property lease and a purported joint venture agreement entered into between a son and his father, the now-deceased former president and majority shareholder of a real estate development corporation, seeking damages for the son's use and occupancy of the property and a judgment declaring that the lease and joint venture agreement were void, the District Court's rulings denying the son's discovery requests and granting summary judgment to corporate-plaintiff are affirmed where: 1) the lease was void as a gift or act of corporate waste; and 2) the parol evidence rule applies in this case and the integration clause in the lease retains its preclusive effect, thus the purported joint venture agreement is unenforceable.

(United States First Circuit) - In another appeal in a protracted employment dispute between two former colleagues in which plaintiff sought payment of his promised wages and loan money, the District Court's decision to use Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(c) to hold defendant and related entities liable for the judgment originally entered against defendant's company only is affirmed where the District Court did not plainly err in joining related entities as alter egos of defendant's company and holding them liable for the judgment entered in favor of plaintiff.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In a shareholder derivative lawsuit alleging that casino resort board of director defendants breached their fiduciary duties, the District Court's dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23.1 is affirmed where: 1) diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. section 1332(a)(2) was improper because there were American citizens on both sides of the case; 2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the shareholders failed to comply with Rule 23.1 or state law governing demand futility; and 3) there was no reversible error if the district court considered materials extraneous to the complaint.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In an enforcement action filed by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) alleging that the defendants participated in a scheme to defraud investors by reporting millions of dollars in revenue that were never realized, the District Court's judgment in favor of defendant-corporate officers is vacated where: 1) Rule 13a-14 of the Securities Exchange Act provided the SEC with a cause of action not only against Chief Executive Officers and Chief Financial Officers who did not file the required certifications, but also against CEOs and CFOs who certified false or misleading statements; and 2) the disgorgement remedy authorized under Section 304 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act applied regardless of whether a restatement was caused by the personal misconduct of an issuer's CEO and CFO or by other issuer misconduct.

(United States First Circuit) - Affirming bankruptcy court and district court rulings that a transaction involving the debt-financed purchase of a family owned leather manufacturer was not a fraudulent conveyance and did not amount to a violation of the fiduciary duties of the company's directors because the factual determinations were not clearly erroneous and supported the court's conclusions.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirming the dismissal of a shareholder derivative action filed in California because the forum selection provision on the company's certificate of incorporation designated Delaware as the forum for shareholder derivative actions.

(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.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed that a proposed shareholder class action could not proceed in a California court. The proper jurisdiction was Delaware because the defendant corporation had adopted a bylaw designating Delaware as the exclusive litigation forum for intra-corporate disputes. The forum selection bylaw was enforceable even though it had been adopted without stockholder consent.

(NY Supreme Court) - 2017–04429 2018–04808 Index No. 4054/13

(NY Supreme Court) - 2017–07383 (Index  12949/10) 12949/10

(NY Supreme Court) - 2018–11536 (Index No. 51923/17)

(NY Supreme Court) - 2019–04234 Index No. 523834/18

(NY Supreme Court) - 2019–09206 Index No. 604223/16

(NY Supreme Court) - 2020–03439 Index No. 85053/20

(NY Supreme Court) - 528980

(NY Supreme Court) - 528762

(NY Supreme Court) - 527667

(NY Supreme Court) - 2020–03456

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed that an insurance company timely removed an insurance coverage case to federal court by filing a notice of removal within the statutory 30-day time limit. The clock began to run only when the insurance company actually received the insured's complaint, not when its statutorily designated agent did.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Held that a health insurance company did not violate the Affordable Care Act's Medical Loss Ratio provision, which requires an insurer to pay a rebate to enrollees if it uses less than 80 percent of the revenue it takes in to pay medical claims. Affirmed a dismissal, in this proposed class action lawsuit brought by health insurance enrollees.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed a judgment in favor of a medical supplier in its lawsuit against a health insurance company that refused to pay for covered services. The supplier, which provides equipment and staffing to doctors who perform surgery in their own offices, prevailed in a jury trial.

(United States Second Circuit) - Held that an insurance company did not have to arbitrate a former employee's claims before the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), an entity with which the company had severed ties. The FINRA arbitration code no longer applied to the company, even though the employee had once been registered as a securities industry representative of the company.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Held that a policyholder who successfully sued a life insurance company was not entitled to an award of attorney fees. Reversed the fee award, in this diversity jurisdiction case.

(California Court of Appeal) - In an insurance coverage dispute, addressed whether the daughter of an insured car crash victim was entitled to benefits under an uninsured motorist policy. Affirmed a judgment on the pleadings.