(United States Ninth Circuit) - Finding the crime described in Article 129 of South Korea’s Criminal Code fits squarely within the definition of “bribing a public official” from 18 U.S.C. Section 1956, the indictment was sufficient and there was no instructional error.

(WV Supreme Court of Appeals) - No. 18-0408

(WV Supreme Court of Appeals) - No. 18-0653

NORTH Bondi Surf Club is proving to be a hotbed of talented youngsters, with Hamish Donkin the latest product set to make a mark at the top level.

SYDNEY is about to welcome the return of Odorama — a scratch and sniff movie experience that has to be smelled to be believed.

NORTH Sydney mayor Jilly Gibson has made an astonishing claim that councillors had a pact to drive her to a nervous breakdown adding that there was “an evil feeling within” the council.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Convictions arising from the capitalization and operation of real estate development business are affirmed where there is not a reversible plain error. The jury instruction error in this case was not 'clear and obvious' because it was not clearly required by precedent, and the error did not affect the outcome of the proceedings.

(United States Second Circuit) - Held that a copyright ownership claim was timely filed. The statute of limitations was not triggered by the defendants' act of registering their competing claim of ownership in the Copyright Office. Denied a petition for rehearing, in a dispute over ownership of renewal term copyrights in certain musical compositions and sound records.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Held that a clothing manufacturer could not proceed with a copyright infringement lawsuit against a competitor that allegedly copied a fabric design because the copyright registration was invalid due to knowingly inaccurate paperwork. Affirmed summary judgment for the defendants.

FROM being unwanted by Australia due to visa issues, Ali Rizwan is now a much wanted member for the Sydney Thunder Nation Cup All-Stars and has even been invited to bowl to international teams at net practices.

THE future of rugby at Manly looks bright judging by the performances of the mighty Seaforth Raiders under nines.

SATURDAY marks the start of another Sydney Shires season – and Warringah are gunning for the top four.

(California Court of Appeal) - The denial of a petition for writ of administrative mandate to review the decision of the State Board of Chiropractic Examiners (Board) revoking petitioner's chiropractic license, is affirmed as the Board's findings are supported by substantial evidence and petitioner's other claims of error are meritless.

(California Court of Appeal) - In appeal from a judgment affirming a medical malpractice arbitration award in favor of defendant, judgment is reversed and remanded, where the California Arbitration Act and the California Ethics Standards for Neutral Arbitrators in Contractual Arbitrations require that: 1) a neutral arbitrator disclose that a lawyer in the arbitration is a member of the administering "dispute provider resolution organization"; and 2) section 1286.2 (a)(6) compels a trial court to vacate the arbitration award if the arbitrator fails to disclose that information.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed a default judgment entered against an individual residing in India who was being sued by his former employer for allegedly stealing computer source code and using it to create a competing business, in a case where the individual contested personal jurisdiction but failed to follow certain local rules.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Vacate and remand. Plaintiff, a prisoner, brought suit against prison official alleging that they arranged another inmate to attack him and stood by while he was severely injured. District court granted summary judgment with prejudice to Defendant for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Appeals court found that Plaintiff had failed to exhaust administrative remedies, but the proper disposition was dismissal without prejudice.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed judgment for nonsuit. Plaintiff, a juvenile, sued Department of Children and Family Services for sexual abuse while she was in foster care. Trial court granted nonsuit because Defendant did not have a duty to protect Plaintiff from criminal actions of third parties. Appeals court affirmed, but modified cost award.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed. In the case of a man who alleged a constitutional violation related to his injuries while in custody, the dismissal of all federal claims for failure to state a claim affirmed, as was the decision not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a Texas law claim.

(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 Ninth Circuit) - Reversed the dismissal of a shareholder class action against Toshiba Corp. filed by investors who alleged securities fraud. The district court dismissed their claims on jurisdictional grounds and, on appeal, the plaintiffs argued that the district court misapplied principles regarding extraterritorial applicability of U.S. securities laws set forth in Morrison v. Nat'l Australia Bank Ltd., 561 U.S. 247 (2010). The Ninth Circuit agreed with plaintiffs and reversed and remanded with instructions to allow the plaintiffs to amend their shareholder complaint against the Japanese firm to overcome the jurisdictional hurdle.

(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 Second Circuit) - Affirmed a man's conviction under the International Parental Kidnapping Crime Act for conspiring with a woman to remove her child to Nicaragua in order to prevent her civil-union partner from exercising parental rights. Appealing his conviction, the man argued that the district court should have suppressed location information garnered from his cellphone records because the government obtained them through a subpoena issued pursuant to the Stored Communications Act rather than a court‐approved warrant. Finding no merit in this contention or in his objection to the jury instructions, the Second Circuit affirmed his conviction.

(United States Second Circuit) - Affirmed. Defendant appeals his bribery conviction, arguing improper jury instructions and insufficient evidence. The court finds the “official act” standard from McDonnell does not apply to Guinea’s Penal Code, and any potential evidentiary errors were harmless. Judgement is affirmed.

(California Court of Appeal) - Judgment for plaintiff in an action alleging intentional interference with a License Agreement, interference with plaintiff's prospective economic advantage, breach of a confidentiality agreement, and breach of confidence, arising out of defendant Actelion's notice to plaintiff that following its acquisition of defendant CoTherix, defendant Co-Therix's would discontinue development of plaintiff's drug for "business and commercial reasons," is affirmed, where: 1) defendant Actelion, by virtue of its ownership interest, is not automatically immune from tortious interference with the License Agreement; 2) the jury was properly instructed on the elements of wrongful interference with contract and properly charged with considering whether defendants "used unlawful means to interfere with the License Agreement;" and 3) the manager's privilege does not exempt a manager from liability when he or she tortiously interferes with a contract or relationship between third parties.

(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.

(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.

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

(NY Supreme Court) - 2020–03456

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Held that an insurance company was not liable for bad faith for failing to settle a medical malpractice claim for the policy limit. Affirmed a JMOL against the claims of an outpatient surgical center.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - In an insurance coverage dispute arising out of a car crash, construed Mississippi's Uninsured Motorist Act. Held that the insurer was entitled to summary judgment in this diversity action.

(United States Second Circuit) - Affirmed. Plaintiff, a Connecticut attorney, sued Defendants, a group of title insurance companies, for violating a Connecticut law that allows only Connecticut attorneys to act as title agents in the state. The original complaint contained class action allegations under the Class Action Fairness Act, but Plaintiff removed all class-action allegations in a subsequent complaint. The district court held that without the class-act allegations, it no longer had jurisdiction and dismissed the complaint.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. An insurer had to replace the siding on an entire building whose south and west sides were damaged by a storm because the old siding was no longer available and the new siding didn't match.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed. The trial court's determination that the County Board of Supervisors' elimination of a longtime county Solid Waste Enforcement Officer's position was retaliation was upheld. The employee was running for sheriff as an Independent and the Board preferred Democrats.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. The US Department of Housing and Urban Development did not fail to reasonably accommodate an employee that had previously taken advantage of a telecommute policy following hand surgery when, following restructuring and performance deficiencies, they revoked her telecommute privileges.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Declined to hear a challenge to Treasury Offset Program regulations. A law firm ended up with nothing in legal fees because the government administratively offset fees awarded to its Social Security recipient clients under the Equal Access to Justice Act against the clients' various debts to the government. On appeal, the Seventh Circuit held that the offset matter was better suited for a separate action under the Administrative Procedure Act, and declined to exercise ancillary jurisdiction over a collateral challenge to the pertinent regulations.

(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.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed that a school district failed to take the proper steps to enact a fee on new residential development within the district to fund the construction of school facilities. Held that the fee study did not contain the data required to properly calculate a development fee.

(United States Supreme Court) - This case involved the State of Washington's tax on fuel importers who travel by public highway. The Yakama Nation contended that its 1855 treaty with the United States forbids that tax from being imposed upon fuel importers who are tribal members. The U.S. Supreme Court agreed with the tribe. Justice Breyer's plurality opinion was joined by only two other justices. Justices Gorsuch and Ginsburg concurred in the judgment.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. Plaintiffs bought shares in a company that invests in government bonds. Plaintiffs contend that the dividends they received are exempt from taxation per the California Constitution. The trial court disagreed, and the appellate court upheld the ruling.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that an excess insurer could not sue an insured's lawyers for negligent misrepresentation. The insurer claimed that the lawyers led it to believe that a product liability suit posed no threat of exposure to its policy. Concluding that the law firm was immune from suit under these circumstances, the Fifth Circuit reversed the denial of a motion to dismiss and rendered a judgment of dismissal.

(United States Fourth Circuit) - Affirming in part, reversing in part, and remanding a case alleging copyright infringement seeking to hold a high-speed internet provider contributorily responsible for infringement of a music publisher's copyrights, affirming the trial court's determination that the defense was not entitled to a safe harbor defense, but reversing, vacating, and remanding on account of errors in jury instructions.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed an order denying attorney's fees to a newspaper that had been forced to litigate over its request for public records. The newspaper argued that it was entitled to reasonable attorney's fees under the California Public Records Act. However, the Third Appellate District disagreed, holding that the Act does not allow for an award of attorney fees when the requester litigates against an officer of a public agency in a mandamus action that the officer initiated to keep the public agency from disclosing records it agreed to disclose.

(California Court of Appeal) - In a case dealing with the issue of whether California's franchise tax applies to an out-of-state corporation whose sole connection with California is a 0.2 percent ownership interest in a manager-managed California limited liability company (LLC) investment fund, the trial court's judgment is affirmed where passively holding a 0.2 percent ownership interest, with no right of control over the business affairs of the LLC, does not constitute 'doing business' in California within the meaning of Rev. & Tax. Code section 23101.

(United States Supreme Court) - The US Supreme Court held that American Express (Amex) anti-steering provisions, in its agreement with merchants to prohibit merchants who take Amex cards from discouraging customers from using their cards in order for the merchant to avoid paying Amex a fee, do not violate the Sherman Antitrust Act.

(California Court of Appeal) - In a class action alleging the City unlawfully charged plaintiffs and others an unauthorized trash disposal fee, the trial court's grant of summary judgment to defendant, on grounds that the City had already reimbursed the plaintiffs for all improper charges, is affirmed where: 1) plaintiffs' individual claims are moot because a court could grant them no further relief beyond what they have already received; and 2) unlike other cases in which the 'pick off' exception has been applied, here, the injunctive relief provisions in the Chakhalyan v. City of Los Angeles stipulated settlement and judgment required the City to reimburse plaintiffs and other putative class members, and the City complied with this obligation before plaintiffs filed the second amended complaint naming them as parties; and thus 2) under these particular circumstances, the 'pick off' exception does not apply.

(United States Third Circuit) - Reversed a ruling that the City of Philadelphia unconstitutionally uses liens as a means to collect unpaid gas bills. In this lawsuit brought by a group of landlords, the City appealed from a ruling that it had violated the landlords' rights under the Due Process Clause by using a system of liens to collect unpaid gas bills. On appeal, the Third Circuit upheld the constitutionality of the City's procedures for collecting gas debts, and thus reversed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to the landlords.