Legal News

Case Summaries

Securities Law

[03/09] In re: Omnicom Group, Inc. Secs. Litig.
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.

[03/02] Ma v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc.
In an action against Merrill Lynch based on unauthorized transfers from plaintiff's investment account, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where New York U.C.C. Section 4-A-505, which imposes a one-year statute of repose on certain claims based on electronic funds transfers, bars plaintiffs' common law claims, which had longer limitations periods.

[02/26] D&J Tire Inc. v. Hercules Tire & Rubber Co.
In an action by a minority shareholder for breach of fiduciary duty arising out of defendant-executive's failure to disclose that defendant corporation was in talks to be acquired when the executive served as a mandatary on plaintiff's behalf to redeem his shares, summary judgment for defendant is vacated where: 1) because Louisiana's prescription statute did not bar plaintiff's rescission claim, the district court needs to determine whether plaintiff could prove that defendant's directors failed to disclose a material fact; 2) because defendant's directors were acting in their official capacity when redeeming plaintiff's stock, Connecticut courts would impose a fiduciary duty to disclose material facts in this situation; and 3) there was no reason, under Louisiana law, to apply another prescriptive period merely because defendant was also CFO of the corporation when the claim was based on his duties as mandatary.

[02/23] US v. Brown
Former Chief Legal Counsel for Rite Aid's conviction and sentence for conspiracy to commit accounting fraud, filing false statements with the SEC, and other related crimes, is affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded where: 1) district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's Rule 33 motion based on newly discovered evidence; 2) defendant's pre-trial suppression motion of the taped conversations was properly denied; 3) district court did not abuse its discretion in its reaction to defendant's plea agreement; and 4) defendant's sentence is vacated and remanded as the district court failed to explain, in the manner now required under Booker, how it considered the section 3553(a) factors in imposing the sentence.

[02/22] Bixler v. Foster
In an action by minority shareholders of a corporation against its directors and lawyers, alleging that defendants violated the civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), when they arranged to transfer the company's assets to an Australian corporation, dismissal of the complaint is affirmed where: 1) plaintiffs lacked standing under RICO to assert shareholder derivative claims; 2) allegations of securities fraud did not establish predicate acts under RICO; and 3) the "continuity" requirement of RICO was not satisfied by the allegations in the complaint.

[02/22] Raymond James Fin. Servs. Inc. v. Bishop
A decision vacating an arbitration panel's award of compensatory damages in favor of three financial advisors arising from their claims of wrongful discharge, pursuant to the rules of the National Association of Securities Dealers (NASD), is affirmed where: 1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in remanding the award to the arbitration panel for clarification of the bases of the award; 2) the arbitration panel committed no mere error of law, rather, by rendering an award whose underlying legal basis exceeded the bounds of arbitrable employment-related disputes cognizable under NASD Rule 10101 as interpreted in Zandford v. Prudential-Bache Secs., Inc., 112 F.3d 723 (4th Cir. 1997), the panel exceeded its powers under 9 U.S.C. section 10(a)(4).

[02/19] Law Debenture Trust Co. of N.Y. v. Maverick Tube Corp.
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.

[02/17] Gebhart v. SEC
In a petition for review of the SEC's order sustaining a National Association of Securities Dealers disciplinary sanction against petitioners-securities salespersons for making false statements to clients in connection with the sale of promissory notes used to finance the conversion of mobile home parks to resident ownership, the petition is denied where the SEC considered all of the evidence bearing on petitioners' actual state of mind, including their extreme departure from ordinary standards of care, and found that they were consciously aware of the risk that their statements were false.

[02/16] Operating Local 649 Annuity Trust Fund v. Smith Barney Fund Mgmt. LLC
In a securities fraud action alleging that defendant negotiated a contract for transfer agent services that saddled plaintiffs with excessive, misleadingly disclosed fees, dismissal of the complaint is affirmed in part where plaintiff could not seek damages that inured to its own benefit and not to the funds' benefit under the Investment Company Act. However, the order is vacated in part where: 1) defendants' disclosures concerning the transfer fee arrangements were inadequate and would be material to the average investor; and 2) defendants' misrepresentations proximately resulted in the regular deduction of identifiable amounts that would not have been deducted had defendants conformed their conduct to what the law required.

[02/12] Archdiocese of Milwaukee Supporting Fund, Inc. v. Halliburton Co.
In a securities fraud class action, the district court's denial of class certification is affirmed where, following review of the alleged misrepresentations and corrective disclosures at issue, the circuit court concluded plaintiff failed to meet the court's requirements for proving loss causation at the class certification stage.

More...

Workers' Comp

[03/05] Rhine v. Stevedoring Servs. of Am.
In a petition for review of a decision of the Benefits Review Board under 33 U.S.C. section 921(c) of the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, the petition is denied where: 1) a reasonable mind could have concluded that the Pacific Maritime Association Average adequately represented petitioner's annual earning capacity; and 2) the availability of alternative employment was determined by reference to two criteria: the claimant's physical abilities and the economic availability of particular jobs in the market.

[03/03] City of Laguna Beach v. California Ins. Guarantee Ass'n
In a city's action against an insurance company seeking reimbursement for incurring workers' compensation liability that exceeded its self-insured retention, grant of insurance company's motion for summary judgment is affirmed where: 1) the addition of subdivision (c)(13) to Ins. Code section 1063.1 did not abrogate Denny's Inc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd., 104 Cal.App.4th 1433 (2003); 2) the trial court properly invoked the Denny's rule when it granted summary judgment and concluded that the city cannot obtain reimbursement from defendant under section 1063.1(c)(13) as, although this provision renders the obligation of an insolvent excess workers' compensation insurer a "covered claim" that defendant must ordinarily reimburse, defendant need not reimburse a permissibly self-insured employer for benefits paid to an employee for cumulative injury if the employer's liability is based in part on a period of time when the employer was self-insured and chose not to buy excess insurance for the particular risk.

[02/26] Lara v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.
Workers' Compensation Appeals Board's decision against the petitioner and in favor of the defendant is affirmed as, the petitioner, hired twice in the space of 12 months to prune bushes for a diner, was not an employee of the diner at the time he sustained injury, but rather, he was an independent contractor exempt from workers' compensation coverage.

[02/26] Elliott v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.
Decision of the WCAB that plaintiff's employer was not obligated to provide the requested spinal surgery is reversed and remanded as, in light of its en banc decision in Cervantes v. El Aguila Food Products, Inc. (2009) 74 Cal.Comp.Cases 1336 explicitly denouncing the Brasher holding relied on by the WCAB in this case, the employer is ordered to authorize the requested surgery or object to the treating physician's recommendation under 4062(b) within 10 days of receipt of this order, thereby commencing the spinal surgery second opinion process.

[02/12] Conley v. Nat'l Mines Corp.
Order of the Benefits Review Board reversing an Administrative Law Judge's award of black lung benefits on a widow's claim filed by petitioner under the Black Lung Benefits Act after her husband died of metastatic lung cancer is affirmed as the Board did not err in concluding that the decedent's treating physician's opinion was insufficient to carry the widow's burden of proof, based on the standard previously articulated in Eastover Mining Co. v. Williams, 338 F.3d 501 (6th Cir. 2003).

[01/29] Firemans' Fund Ins. Co. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.
An order of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denying Fireman's Fund Insurance Company's petition for reconsideration regarding a stipulation entered into by plaintiff and the California Insurance Guarantee Association in 2001 is annulled and the matter is remanded where: 1) CIGA's stipulations and a subsequently entered order on the stipulations were not a nullity and void; and 2) the WCAB improperly exercised its discretion under the Labor Code section 5803 to set aside the order entered on the stipulations on the ground of illegality and public policy.

[11/25] Duncan v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.
Plaintiff's petition for review of a decision by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board is granted and the Board's decision annulled as the cost of living adjustment pursuant to Labor Code section 4659(c) for life pensions and total disability indemnity are added to those payments, per the words of the statute, starting January 1, 2004, and every January 1 thereafter.

[11/13] Gelson's Markets, Inc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.
Workers' Compensation Appeals Board's decision and award finding the employer liable for discrimination against an industrially injured employee because the employer did not accept a physician's release to allow the employee to return to work is annulled as the employee did not establish a prima facie showing of employer's liability for discrimination in violation of Labor Code section 132a, and as such, the burden did not shift to the employer to establish an affirmative defense.

[10/30] Ins. Co. of the State of Pennsylvania v. Lejeune
In plaintiff's worker's compensation case against his employer's insurance carrier, court of appeals' default judgment against the defendant is reversed and remanded as the clerk's endorsement of the return of citation did not satisfy Rules 16 and 105.

[09/28] Person-Gaines v. Pepco Holdings, Inc.
Decision of the Industrial Board denying claimant's petition for additional work-related injury compensation is affirmed as the record shows the IAB's findings of fact were bases on expert testimony it deemed reliable and those findings - that claimant's petition and the expert testimony failed to establish any additional permanent impairment related to her 1988 work injury - were supported by substantial evidence.

More...