(United States DC Circuit) - Held that a Switzerland-based financial firm could proceed with a tax refund claim. The firm sought a $38 million refund under a U.S.-Swiss treaty that deals with the tax on dividends paid by U.S. corporations and received by foreign shareholders. Reversed the district court's ruling that the refund claim raised a nonjusticiable political question.

(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.

(United States First Circuit) - In this shareholder derivate suit, plaintiff Sarnacki asserts Nevada state-law claim against Smith & Wesson's officers and directors, including breach of fiduciary duties, wastes of corporate assets, and unjust enrichment. In reaction to earlier and parallel cases, Smith & Wesson's Board formed a Special Litigation Committee (SLC) to investigate and determine the viability of any of these claims and to make a recommendation to the Board whether to pursue any of these claims. The SLC recommended against filing any claims. The district court granted defendant's motion for summary dismissal on the basis of the SLC recommendation, and after limited discovery. The judgment is affirmed, where: 1) the Board has met its burden as to proving the independence of the SLC; 2) the SLC's investigation was reasonable and in good faith; and 3) the district court's decision to limit discovery was not an abuse of the court's discretion, as it was adequate to aid its review.

(California Court of Appeal) - In an action for breach of an indemnity agreement, the trial court's grant of summary judgment requiring defendant to pay plaintiff approximately $6.07 million pursuant to the indemnity agreement is affirmed where although the signatory did not have actual authority to execute the indemnity agreement on defendant's behalf, in these circumstances, the person's signature binds defendant pursuant to former Corporations Code section 17157(d) (now section 17703.01(d)), provided that the other party to the agreement does not have actual knowledge of the person's lack of authority to execute the agreement on behalf of defendant.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversing the trial court's order reinstating the Gurneys, the producers of Duck Dynasty, to positions managing the day-to-day operations of the plaintiff company that they once owned and are the minority owners of, who had been fired from their roles as CEOs and removed from management, because the very operating agreement the Gurneys said gave them authority to manage actually gave the company, through its board, the ultimate authority and allowed them to remove the Gurneys from management, but affirming the preliminary injunction allowing them to continue as board members and barring the company from infringing their rights in that position.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Held that shareholders were liable for taxes on proceeds from the sale of a close corporation. The Internal Revenue Service sued the shareholders, claiming they violated Arizona's Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act by engaging in a complex series of stock and asset transactions that resulted in creating a debtor company unable to pay the tax bill. Agreeing with the IRS's position, the Ninth Circuit reversed a decision of the Tax Court and remanded with instructions to enter judgment in favor of the IRS.

(NY Supreme Court) - 110389

(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.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that an insurance company could not bring a subrogation claim against its insured's tenant (a furniture manufacturing business) for amounts paid out under a fire insurance policy, even if the tenant was negligent. Affirmed a summary judgment ruling.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Addressed insurance coverage issues in a securities fraud case. Held that the district court abused its discretion in approving a settlement agreement and so-called bar orders. Vacated and remanded for further proceedings, in this case involving a financial firm's massive Ponzi scheme.

(United States DC Circuit) - Vacated. A district court conclusion that executive orders regarding relations between the federal government and its employees was unlawful was in error. The district court lacked jurisdiction.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Petition denied. A company's petition for review of an administrative law judge's finding of violations and imposition of a monetary penalty against a poultry processing plant following a worker injury was upheld.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed. The district court's dismissal of claims for interference and retaliation in violation of the Family and Medical Leave Act in the case of a man reprimanded for swearing, quoting the bible, and generally being abrasive in colleague interactions.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. A former employee alleging discrimination could be compelled to arbitrate his claims because he didn't opt out of the company's arbitration agreement.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed the U.S. Tax Court's ruling that an energy company was liable for a deficiency of more than $400 million for certain previous tax years, and also for $87 million in accuracy-related penalties.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed the dismissal of a telecommunication company's lawsuit seeking a refund of California sales and use taxes. Held that the tax exclusion for telephone lines does not extend to pre-installation component parts that may one day be incorporated into completed telephone systems.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirming a U.S. Tax Court decision, held that the former sole shareholder of a company that received a $65 million litigation settlement was liable for the taxes, and in particular the pre-notice interest component, despite having entered into a tax-shelter transaction.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed the Tax Court's finding that a woman did not qualify for innocent spouse relief, in a case involving a married couple's deficient joint federal income tax return.

(United States DC Circuit) - Held that a Switzerland-based financial firm could proceed with a tax refund claim. The firm sought a $38 million refund under a U.S.-Swiss treaty that deals with the tax on dividends paid by U.S. corporations and received by foreign shareholders. Reversed the district court's ruling that the refund claim raised a nonjusticiable political question.

(United States Second Circuit) - Held that a husband and wife were not liable for a 2008 tax deficiency. The IRS had applied the substance‐over‐form doctrine to recharacterize various lawful tax‐avoiding transactions as tax‐generating events for the taxpayers, their adult sons, a family trust, and a family‐controlled corporation. Reversed the tax court.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Held that a tax shelter reflected an abusive sham. Affirmed the Tax Court's judgment and imposition of penalties.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that an organization lacked standing to bring a facial challenge to an Internal Revenue Service test for determining certain tax liabilities. The conservative issue-advocacy organization contended that the test was unconstitutionally vague.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed the Tax Court's decision that a decedent's estate had overstated the amount of a charitable deduction and thus received a large tax windfall. Also affirmed the imposition of an accuracy-related penalty.

(United States Second Circuit) - Held that the U.S. Tax Court could order a refund of a taxpayer's income tax overpayment. The Tax Court had concluded that it lacked jurisdiction under the particular circumstances here, even though all parties agreed that the taxpayer had overpaid. Disagreeing, the Second Circuit reversed and remanded, characterizing the issue as one of first impression in any court.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Upheld the validity of a Treasury Department regulation. The provision's focus is that related business entities must share the cost of employee stock compensation in order for their cost-sharing arrangements to be classified as qualified cost-sharing arrangements. Reversed the judgment of the U.S. Tax Court.

(Supreme Court of California) - Held that it is constitutional for San Francisco to impose a tax on drivers who park their cars in paid parking lots, even when the parking lot is operated by a state university.

(United States DC Circuit) - Reversed and remanded. The Tax Court improperly dismissed a case involving a man's application to the IRS for a whistleblower award because although his application was untimely the filing period was not jurisdictional and is subject to equitable tolling.

(California Court of Appeal) - Trial court's dismissal with prejudice of complaint for personal injuries during jury trial, as a sanction for plaintiff's counsel's repeated violations of its orders excluding hearsay and opinion testimony, is affirmed where the trial court was within its discretion in granting the terminating sanction and did not err when it granted defendants' motions in limine because attorney is an officer of the court and he or she must respect and follow court orders, whether they are right or wrong, People v. Pigage (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 1359, 1374, Bus. & Prof. Code section 6068(b).

(United States Fourth Circuit) - Determining that the sentencing court in a criminal case did not plainly err in designating a defendant a career offender did not mean that trial counsel was ineffective by failing to object to that designation because the standards for review of the decisions do not necessarily result in equivalent outcomes, but that in the present case the failure to do so resulted in ineffective assistance and the sentence was vacated and the case remanded for resentencing.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Reversing the district court's denial of a writ of habeas corpus as to the guilt phase claims relating to first degree murder, vacating the convictions and remanding because if counsel had performed effectively by investigating and presenting evidence of the defendant's diminished mental capacity defense based on mental impairment there was a reasonable probability at least one juror would have had a reasonable doubt about his ability to form the requisite mental state for first degree murder.

(California Court of Appeal) - Granting a writ petition in the case of a doctor who contested the introduction of arrest records relating to his conviction for possession of cocaine in professional misconduct proceedings and the tension between the Penal Code section stating that successful completion of a diversion program should not be used in a way that could result in the loss of a license and the Business and Professions Code section stating that the successful completion of diversion does not prohibit the agency from taking disciplinary action, holding that the latter statute was controlling.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that the statute of limitations for malicious prosecution claims against attorneys is one year. Accordingly, the present lawsuit was time-barred. Affirmed the decision below.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that a lawyer should not have been disqualified from representing a student-employee at a community college in a sexual harassment case. He did not violate California State Bar Rules of Professional Conduct concerning communications with represented parties when he contacted another student-employee seeking a witness statement. Granted writ relief.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversing a trial court judgment granting writ of mandate and the award of attorney's fees in the case of a real estate salesperson who sued a state agency for publicizing her three misdemeanor convictions because they had no mandatory duty to remove from their website information about a licensee's convictions even if they were eventually dismissed.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that the State Bar of California did not have to disclose information from its database. For social science research purposes, the petitioners sought anonymized data about all individuals who took the California bar examination from 1972 to 2008, including their race or ethnicity, law school and undergraduate grade point averages, LSAT scores, and performance on the bar examination. Affirming the denial of a writ of mandate, the California First Appellate District held that such a request was beyond the purview of the California Public Records Act because it would compel the State Bar to create new records.

(United States Fourth Circuit) - In a complex matter which began more than fifteen years ago as a bid-rigging scheme conjured up by shipping businesses to defraud the United States, the District Court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant is vacated where the court erred by: 1) deciding that the successor corporation liability claims against defendant should be dismissed because they had been inadequately pleaded; and 2) ruling that there was insufficient evidence to justify a trial.

(California Court of Appeal) - In an action for breach of an indemnity agreement, the trial court's grant of summary judgment requiring defendant to pay plaintiff approximately $6.07 million pursuant to the indemnity agreement is affirmed where although the signatory did not have actual authority to execute the indemnity agreement on defendant's behalf, in these circumstances, the person's signature binds defendant pursuant to former Corporations Code section 17157(d) (now section 17703.01(d)), provided that the other party to the agreement does not have actual knowledge of the person's lack of authority to execute the agreement on behalf of defendant.

(California Court of Appeal) - In a suit brought by the former CEO of American Apparel whose employment was terminated following an investigation into allegations that he engaged in various types of misconduct, alleging several causes of action rooted in plaintiff's claim that the press release announcing his termination contained false and defamatory information about him, the trial court's grant of defendant's order granting an anti-SLAPP motion, Code Civ. Proc. section 425.16, is affirmed where plainitiff did not satisfy his burden of showing there was a minimal chance his claims would succeed at trial.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In a petition challenging a notice of Final Partnership Administrative Adjustment, the Tax Court’s dismissal, for lack of jurisdiction, is affirmed where: 1) because plaintiff contended that his business entity was a small partnership not subject to the audit procedures under the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (TEFRA), entities that are disregarded for federal tax purposes may nevertheless constitute pass-thru partners under 26 U.S.C. section 6231(a)(9), such that the small-partnership exception under section 6231 does not apply and the partnership is therefore subject to the TEFRA audit procedures; 2) resolution of this question iss inextricably intertwined with the contention that plaintiff had standing to file a petition for readjustment of partnership items on behalf of his purported small partnership; and 3) as to standing, because a party other than plaintiff's entity's tax matters partner filed a petition for readjustment of partnership items after the partnership had timely done the same, the Tax Court lacked jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. section 6226.

(United States Third Circuit) - Affirming the Tax Court's application of the Ilfield doctrine in holding that the double deduction for losses incurred by the subsidiary of a company was improper and disallowing $199 million of those losses.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversing the trial court's order reinstating the Gurneys, the producers of Duck Dynasty, to positions managing the day-to-day operations of the plaintiff company that they once owned and are the minority owners of, who had been fired from their roles as CEOs and removed from management, because the very operating agreement the Gurneys said gave them authority to manage actually gave the company, through its board, the ultimate authority and allowed them to remove the Gurneys from management, but affirming the preliminary injunction allowing them to continue as board members and barring the company from infringing their rights in that position.

(California Court of Appeal) - Granting a petition for writ of mandate and directing the superior court to modify an order sustaining real parties' demurrer to a plaintiff's cause of action and entering a new order overruling a portion of the demurrer because the lower court improperly analyzed the claim of conversion.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Reversing a district court dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction a case involving potential jurisdictional manipulation and alter ego relationships between companies in a case where a new company's state of residence was unclear because it hadn't conducted any activity apart from incorporation.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Upheld an Internal Revenue Service regulation addressing the tax treatment of employee stock options. In a ruling that has tax implications for multinational companies especially, the Ninth Circuit concluded that the Tax Court erred in striking down a regulation, 26 C.F.R. section 1.482-7A(d)(2), which says that related entities must share the cost of employee stock compensation in order for their cost-sharing arrangements to be classified as qualified cost-sharing arrangements and thus avoid an IRS adjustment. The panel held that the regulation was entitled to Chevron deference.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Held that shareholders were liable for taxes on proceeds from the sale of a close corporation. The Internal Revenue Service sued the shareholders, claiming they violated Arizona's Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act by engaging in a complex series of stock and asset transactions that resulted in creating a debtor company unable to pay the tax bill. Agreeing with the IRS's position, the Ninth Circuit reversed a decision of the Tax Court and remanded with instructions to enter judgment in favor of the IRS.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. Plaintiff sued former employee alleging several business torts including unfair competition and trespass to chattel. Appeals court held that trespass to chattel in business does not establish that the party engaged in an unlawful business practice under California’s Unfair Competition Law. Affirmed in favor of Defendant.

(California Court of Appeal) - In a petition for writ of mandamus and complaint for injunctive and declaratory relief against the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) for failing to comply with the the Public Records Act (PRA), Government Code sections 6250-6276.48, the petition is granted where Public Utilities Code section 1759 bars the superior court from exercising jurisdiction over such a lawsuit.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In a petition for review challenging an Objection Letter sent by the EPA regarding draft permits for water reclamation plants in El Monte and Pomona, California, the petition is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction where neither 33 U.S.C. section 1369(b)(1)(E) nor (F) of the Clean Water Act provided the court with subject matter jurisdiction to review the Objection Letter.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In a petition for review brought by various entities challenging the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)'s calculation of certain refunds arising out of the California energy crisis in 2000 and 2001, the petition is: 1) granted in part where FERC acted arbitrarily or capriciously in allocating the refund only to net buyers and not to all market participants; and 2) denied in part as to the question of whether refunds should be netted hourly or a cross the entire refund period where FERC did not act arbitrarily or capriciously in its construction of tariffs.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversing the judgment and remanding the case of a woman whose home had a distressing electric charge, particularly in the shower, as the result of a power plant next door because the trial court erred in admitting irrelevant evidence relating to stray voltage incidents involving prior owners and tenants and that the admission of that evidence was prejudicial.