Search Results (19542)
Documents on Litigation
Show: results per page
|Costs Principles in Class Actions are Not Asymmetrical|
David Di Paolo, Margot Finley; Borden Ladner Gervais LLP;
June 1, 2015, previously published on March 20, 2015In the recent case of Fischer v. IG, 2015 ONSC 2491, the Divisional Court has settled any debate as to whether s. 31(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, S.O. 1992, c. 6 (“CPA”) is intended to apply asymmetrically in favour of plaintiffs; it is not.
|High Court of Australia Limits Proportionate Liability Laws to Misleading and Deceptive Conduct|
John Emmerig, Michael Legg; Jones Day;
June 1, 2015, previously published on May 2015The judgments in two Full Court decisions of the Federal Court, delivered one week apart, reached different views on an important aspect of the operation of the proportionate liability laws for two important federal statutory regimes—the Corporations Act and the ASIC Act. In one of those...
|Court of Appeals Finds No Advertising Injury Coverage Where Causal Relationship Between Injuries and Activities are Lacking.|
Gregory S. Emrick; Semmes, Bowen & Semmes A Professional Corporation;
June 1, 2015, previously published on May 2015On February 2010, RMG Direct, Inc. (“RMG”) sued Blackstone International Limited (“Blackstone”). RMG alleged several claims, all stemming from an alleged joint venture to market “low vision” lighting products manufactured by Blackstone. Specifically, RMG claimed...
|Please Hold, Someone Will Be With You Shortly: FCC Action on Pending TCPA Petitions Expected Soon|
Keith J. Barnett, Thomas M. Byrne, Juan C. Garcia, Allegra J. Lawrence-Hardy, Phillip E. Stano; Sutherland Asbill & Brennan LLP;
June 1, 2015, previously published on May 29, 2015Following on the heels of FCC Commissioner Michael O’Rielly’s stinging comments imploring the agency to address a backlog of petitions requesting clarification of its Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) regulations, FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler announced on May 27 that he is...
|U.S. District Court Examines Judiciary’s Authority to Review the Merits of Administrative Forfeiture Proceedings|
Richard J. Medoff; Semmes Bowen Semmes A Professional Corporation;
May 29, 2015, previously published on May 2015John Farrace v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, involved a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). The underlying lawsuit was filed by a pawn shop owner seeking judicial review of administrative forfeiture...
|Maryland District Court Denies Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss in Breach of Contract Diversity Action and Grants Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a Surreply|
Jhanelle A. Graham; Semmes, Bowen & Semmes A Professional Corporation;
May 29, 2015, previously published on May 2015In TrimGen Corporation v. Iverson Genetic Diagnostics, Inc., Plaintiff, TrimGen Corporation (“TrimGen” or “Plaintiff”) brought a diversity action against Defendant, Iverson Genetic Diagnostics, Inc. (“Iverson” or “Defendant”), seeking damages of...
|Following Griffin, Maryland High Court Expands on Techniques to Authenticate Social Media Evidence|
Colleen K. O'Brien; Semmes, Bowen & Semmes A Professional Corporation;
May 29, 2015, previously published on May 2015In a trilogy of cases, Albert Sublet IV v. State, Tavares D. Harris v. State, and Carlos Alberto Monge-Martinez v. State (Maryland Court of Appeals, April 23, 2015), Maryland’s highest court addressed the authentication of social media evidence and confirmed that the current rules of evidence...
|Court Finds That The Breadth Of An Investigation Supports A Manager’s Credibility Resolution|
A. Stevenson Bogue; McGrath North Mullin & Kratz, PC LLO;
May 29, 2015, previously published on Second Quarter 2015Many disciplinary actions involve a determination by the company as to who is telling the truth. As illustrated by a recent court decision, a review of an employer’s credibility resolution may turn on how thorough the investigation of the differing versions of events actually was.
|Supreme Court Rules on Statute of Limitations for Claims Against Plan Fiduciaries: Statute of Limitations for ERISA Fiduciary Claims Can Run From the Date of a Failure to Monitor Investments, Not Merely From the Date of the Initial Investment Decision|
Sullivan Cromwell LLP;
May 28, 2015, previously published on May 19, 2015Yesterday in Tibble et al., Petitioners v. Edison International et al., the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the six-year statute of limitations for claims against ERISA fiduciaries runs from the date of a failure to monitor investments, and not simply from the date of the initial investment decision....
|In re Cornerstone Therapeutics Inc. Stockholder Litigation: Delaware Supreme Court Holds That Plaintiffs Seeking Monetary Damages Must Plead Non-Exculpated Claims Against Disinterested Directors to Survive Motion to Dismiss by Those Directors|
Francis J. Aquila, Audra D. Cohen, H. Rodgin Cohen, Mitchell S. Eitel, Brian T. Frawley; Sullivan & Cromwell LLP;
May 28, 2015, previously published on May 18, 2015In a decision1 issued on May 14, 2015, the Delaware Supreme Court held that a plaintiff seeking only monetary damages against a director who is protected by an exculpatory charter provision must plead duty of loyalty/bad faith claims to survive a motion to dismiss, regardless of the underlying...