Business Headlines
News
Business
[07/14] Doctors hopeful easier blood thinners are nearing
[07/11] Fire engulfs commercial boatyard on Maine coast
[07/08] State ethics commission probes WVU degree scandal
Corporate Finance
[07/21] Electronic Arts extends deadline to buy Take-Two
[07/21] Unemployment, stocks push down leading indicators
[07/21] `Dark Knight' sets weekend record with $155.34M
Case Summaries
Commercial Law
[07/24] MAC East, LLC, v. Shoney's, Inc.
In a diversity case involving a commercial real estate lease and a proposal by an assignee of that lease to sublease the real estate to a third party, grant of summary judgment for plaintiff-corporation as to liability on its tortious interference claim is reversed where: 1) defendant corporation was an "essential entity to the purported injured relations"; 2) both plaintiff and defendant were parties to the Assignment Agreement, and thus were "parties to a comprehensive interwoven set of contract or relations"; and 3) defendant cannot be a stranger to the sublease when consummation of the sublease would leave it obligated on the covenants on the ground lease, effectively forming a business relationship between it and proposed subleasee. A question regarding whether a commercial reasonableness standard tempers defendant's "sole discretion" to withhold consent to a proposed sublease is certified to the state supreme court.
[07/23] KT&G Corp. v. Attorney Gen. of the State of Oklahoma
In litigation arising from states' Master Settlement Agreement with the four major tobacco companies, wherein non-participating tobacco manufacturers (NPMs) challenged two states' amendments to provisions of their escrow statutes reducing the amount of escrow funds refunded to plaintiffs each year, dismissal of the claims is affirmed where: 1) the Sherman Act did not preempt the Kansas and Oklahoma amendments at issue; and 2) plaintiffs' First Amendment, equal protection, due process, and Commerce Clause claims failed.
[07/22] California Dep't of Water Res. v. Powerex Corp.
In a case arising out of the 2000-2001 California energy crisis, an order remanding the case to state court is reversed and remanded where: 1) review of a district court's decision to decline an exercise of supplemental jurisdiction is not barred by 28 U.S.C. section 1447(d); 2) in light of certain Supreme Court precedent, there is jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. section 1291 to review the remand order; and 3) defendant, a Canadian corporation that markets and distributes electric power, is an organ of British Columbia, and thus falls within the definition of "foreign state" under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act and is entitled to a federal bench trial.
Contracts
[07/24] In re: Citigroup, Inc. Capital Accumulation Plan Litig.
In an action challenging Citigroup's Capital Accumulation Plan, which gives certain employees the option of receiving part of their compensation as Citigroup stock, awarded at a discounted rate, dismissal and summary judgment rulings against plaintiffs are affirmed where certain forfeiture provisions at issue were unambiguous, and thereby enforceable.
[07/24] MAC East, LLC, v. Shoney's, Inc.
In a diversity case involving a commercial real estate lease and a proposal by an assignee of that lease to sublease the real estate to a third party, grant of summary judgment for plaintiff-corporation as to liability on its tortious interference claim is reversed where: 1) defendant corporation was an "essential entity to the purported injured relations"; 2) both plaintiff and defendant were parties to the Assignment Agreement, and thus were "parties to a comprehensive interwoven set of contract or relations"; and 3) defendant cannot be a stranger to the sublease when consummation of the sublease would leave it obligated on the covenants on the ground lease, effectively forming a business relationship between it and proposed subleasee. A question regarding whether a commercial reasonableness standard tempers defendant's "sole discretion" to withhold consent to a proposed sublease is certified to the state supreme court.
[07/23] KT&G Corp. v. Attorney Gen. of the State of Oklahoma
In litigation arising from states' Master Settlement Agreement with the four major tobacco companies, wherein non-participating tobacco manufacturers (NPMs) challenged two states' amendments to provisions of their escrow statutes reducing the amount of escrow funds refunded to plaintiffs each year, dismissal of the claims is affirmed where: 1) the Sherman Act did not preempt the Kansas and Oklahoma amendments at issue; and 2) plaintiffs' First Amendment, equal protection, due process, and Commerce Clause claims failed.
Tax Law
[07/24] Ordlock v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue
A tax court's determination that wife is ineligible for a refund under 26 U.S.C. section 6015 for payments on her husband's tax debt paid from their community property is affirmed, as nothing in section 6015 clearly preempts California community property law with respect to an innocent spouse's entitlement to a refund for a community property payment on the non-innocent spouse's federal income tax liability.
[07/14] Silicon Valley Taxpayers Ass'n, Inc. v. Santa Clara County Open Space Authority
County agency's imposition of a countywide assessment to fund a program to acquire, improve, and maintain open space lands is subject to independent review by court under Proposition 218, and the assessment is invalid because it does not comply with the special benefit and proportionality requirements for such assessments under article XIII D of the California Constitution.
[05/29] U.S. v. Dedman
In a prosecution arising from a marriage between defendant's adopted daughter/cousin and defendant's adoptive father as part of a plan to collect his military pension, her conviction for conspiracy to defraud the U.S. Department of Defense and making material false statements to a federal agent is affirmed where: 1) the government could not rely on its sham-marriage theory because the district court did not instruct the jury as to such argument; 2) the district court correctly decided that the marriage was void under Arkansas state law; 3) even if the Arkansas marriage statute were unconstitutional, it was not plain error for the district court to apply it; 4) sufficient evidence supported the convictions; 5) a jury instruction regarding Arkansas law was not plainly erroneous; and 6) withheld taxes are properly considered part of the government's loss under U.S.S.G. section 2B1.1.
