(United States Fifth Circuit) - Partially vacated, otherwise affirmed, and remanded. The dismissal of breach of contract claims were vacated, but judgments dismissing civil conspiracy claims and refusal to submit punitive damages claims to a jury were affirmed in a case involving disputes over discounts to charges for physical therapy patients covered by workers' compensation insurance.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. The County of Los Angeles successfully brought a conservatorship action under the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act that allows involuntary detention of persons who are dangerous or gravely disabled due to mental disorder. Conservatee appealed. The appeals court found no reversible error.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversed judgment and reinstated jury verdict in favor of Plaintiff. The trial court granted Defendant, Wells Fargo’s motions including a motion for judgment notwithstanding the jury verdict that found Wells Fargo committed fraud in a Home Affordable Mortgage Program case. The appeals court reversed the rulings and the judgment that it found in favor of Wells Fargo and remanded for further proceedings consistent with appeals court ruling.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. The grant of a defense motion for summary judgement in an Eighth Amendment claim brought by a prisoner against prison nurses he says were deliberately indifferent to his needs as a sickle cell disease sufferer was proper because he failed to exhaust his administrative remedies against one nurse and the record wouldn't support a jury finding on his claim against the other.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Partially affirmed, partially reversed. The removal of children from a home under investigation for abuse did not result in substantive due process violation, but did result in procedural due process rights violation.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. The district court properly dismissed complaint by Cook County residents raising Second Amendment claims challenging a ban on assault rifles because the issue had already been addressed by the court.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Reversed and remanded. The act of handing a complaint to a prison official fulfilled the prison mailbox rule regarding the date of filing.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. D.C. appeals appointment of a conservator under the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act on the grounds that she was not advised of her right to a jury trial, was not afforded an evidentiary hearing, was medicated without her consent and had ineffective assistance of counsel. The appeals court found no reversible error, but cautioned the trial court to state its findings as to the factors set out in Riese v. St. Mary’s Hospital & Medical Center (1987) 209 Cal.App.3d 1303.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. M.M. appeals appointment of a conservator under the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act on the grounds that his trial did not begin within 25 days of his jury demand. The appeals court held that M.M. forfeited the contention because the delay was due to his own counsel’s requests to accommodate his schedule.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. Plaintiff performed framing work on a commercial building owned by Defendant. Plaintiff was not paid for his work and filed a mechanic’s lien. Defendant complained of problems with some of the framing and Plaintiff performed repair work. Plaintiff filed this action to foreclose on its mechanic’s lien. The trial court granted Defendant summary judgment ruling that the mechanic’s lien was filed prematurely, before Plaintiff had ceased work. The appeals court agreed.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. Plaintiff filed suit alleging that Defendant failed to pay them for their work growing marijuana as agreed under a contract. Defendant failed to file a responsive pleading. The trial court ordered Plaintiff to take the Defendant’s default by a specified date. The default was taken. Defendant then sought to set-aside the default. The trial court denied relief. The appeals court found no abuse of discretion finding that the Defendant’s failure to respond to the complaint was knowing and deliberate.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Reversed and remanded. The Texas Citizens Participation Act does not apply to diversity cases in federal court.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. The district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of two individual defendants in a Fourteenth Amendment case arising from the self-mutilation of a man held at a medical health complex was upheld. There was insufficient evidence of their culpability.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed summary judgment in favor of Plaintiff. Defendant was allegedly made a beneficiary of a trust by handwritten interlineations by the original settlor and trustee of a certain trust. Plaintiff, the successor trustee, moved for summary judgment asserting the interlineations were not valid. The appeals court concluded that valid amendments must be by written instrument, signed by the settlor, and delivered to the trustee. The interlineations were never signed, so the trust was not effectively amended.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversed. Plaintiff appealed from judgment that dismissed her medical battery cause of action as time-barred. The appeals court held that the discovery rule applies to medical battery claims under Code of Civil Procedure section 335.1 as a matter of law.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Dismissed. The Center for Biological Diversity lacked standing to challenge the Environmental Protection Agency's issuance of a permit that will lead to increased pollution in the Gulf of Mexico.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In an SEC enforcement action arising from the activities of a company described as a "sham incubator for startup companies", summary judgment ruling against defendant is affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part where: 1) the district court correctly found that defendant was an underwriter under section 2(11) of the Securities Act of 1933, and therefore not exempt from the the Act's registration requirements; 2) it did not err in ordering that defendant disgorge all profits, with interest, he obtained from certain transactions; but 3) genuine issues of material fact precluded summary judgment as to the imposition of certain civil sanctions.

(United States Eighth Circuit) - In an action against Missouri Department of Natural Resources officials claiming denial of equal protection, tortious interference with contract, and First Amendment retaliation, partial summary judgment for defendant on the First Amendment claim and judgment pursuant to jury verdict for plaintiff on the tortious-interference claim are affirmed where: 1) plaintiff had no standing to assert the First Amendment claim; 2) defendant's motions for judgment as a matter of law could not be the basis of an appeal; 3) the district court properly refused defendant's "official duties" and "official immunity" instructions; and 4) the district court had subject matter jurisdiction over the tortious-interference claim.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In a contract and tort action arising from the parties' execution of a Stock Purchase Agreement (SPA), summary judgment for defendant on limitations grounds is reversed where a provision within the SPA permitting the representations and warranties of the parties to survive closing did not unambiguously state the parties' intent to contractually reduce the applicable California statute of limitation to one year.

(United States Sixth Circuit) - In a class action securities violation case, dismissal of the action is affirmed where: 1) plaintiffs failed to allege a misrepresentation or omission of material fact regarding claims arising from a spin-off; 2) plaintiffs failed to allege a strong inference of scienter regarding claims arising from a Restatement filed with the SEC; 3) plaintiffs failed to allege a strong inference of scienter on the part of defendant-CPA firm, and thus dismissal of a section 10(b) claim was appropriate; and 4) dismissal of plaintiffs' section 20(a) claim was proper as there was no predicate violation of the securities laws.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - In a suit arising out of alleged fraud by officers of a corporation acquired by defendant, a preliminary injunction preventing defendant from proceeding with an arbitration hearing on the fraud claims is affirmed where the merger agreement between the two companies did not mandate arbitration of the types of claims defendant asserted against plaintiffs.

(California Court of Appeal) - In a property matter, judgment quieting title to an adjacent property owned by defendant is affirmed where the easement benefiting plaintiff and burdening defendant was extinguished by merger.

(California Court of Appeal) - In a property matter, judgment quieting title to an adjacent property owned by defendant is affirmed where the easement benefiting plaintiff and burdening defendant was extinguished by merger.

(United States DC Circuit) - Denial of the FTC's request for a preliminary injunction against the merger of the Whole Foods and Wild Oats supermarket chains is reversed and remanded where: 1) the case was not moot despite the merger's having already occurred; 2) the district court did not abuse its discretion by considering the market definition proposed by the FTC, in which Whole Foods and Wild Oats compete in the "premium, natural, and organic supermarkets" (PNOS) market, not against all supermarkets; 3) the FTC met the threshold requirements for obtaining a preliminary injunction by demonstrating a likelihood of success on its claim that the two supermarkets did compete in the PNOS market; and 4) the district court was best positioned to balance the FTC's showing against the equities weighing against an injunction. (Amended and reissued opinion)

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Dismissal of a class action complaint alleging false statements contained in a merger agreement with a third party company is affirmed where the plaintiff has not pled facts that would either directly or indirectly give rise to a strong inference of scienter on the part of those officers responsible for making the false statements contained in the merger agreement.

(Supreme Court of Delaware) - In a statutory appraisal action arising from an acquisition by merger, an order modifying the appraisal opinion is reversed where the dispute had become moot by operation of a settlement agreement, and the purported modification of the appraisal opinion therefore had no legal effect.

(Supreme Court of Delaware) - In response to four certified questions from a district court relating to Delaware's Escheat Statute, the Supreme Court of Delaware finds: 1) the new definition of "period of dormancy" for stocks in 12 Del. C. section 1198(9) does not apply retroactively in civil actions involving stocks that were escheated prior to June 30, 2008; 2) common law or statutory causes of actions against parties that are involved in an escheat transaction (other than the State of Delaware) are not superseded by the Escheat Statute. Causes of action for negligence, conversion, and "failure to register" might be available if adequately pleaded, but the court is unable to opine on the question of whether a claim for breach of fiduciary duty or "some other cause of action" is viable against defendants; 3) only the immunity granted by 12 Del. C. section 1203(b) applies in this case involving escheatment of stock; and 4) "Good faith" under 12 Del. C. section 1203(b) is an affirmative defense, the substantive elements of which must be pleaded and proved by the defendant that claims immunity.

(United States Federal Circuit) - In plaintiffs' breach of contract case against United States, acting through the FDIC, the Court of Federal Claims' judgment is affirmed in part, revered in part and remanded where: 1) the judgment of the Court of Federal Claims is affirmed as to jurisdiction, liability, and the assessment of damages for lost value in the amount of $276 million, net of the receivership deficit, and with an appropriate tax gross-up; 2) judgments as to the award of $67 million in non-overlapping restitution damages and as cumulative the award of wounded bank damages of $28 million are reversed; and 3) dismissal of intervenors' claims relating to the liquidation surplus is reversed and remanded.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - In plaintiffs' consolidated securities action against defendants alleging fraud in connection with a merger, the judgment of the district court is affirmed where it did not abuse its discretion: 1) in dismissing the case with prejudice as the plaintiffs had a number of opportunities to craft a complaint that complied with the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act; 2) in denying plaintiffs' motion to vacate the judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e); and 3) in denying the plaintiffs' motion to file an amended complaint.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In an action alleging RICO violations in connection with defendants' acquisition of a Polish telecommunications company, the dismissal of the action on forum non conveniens grounds is affirmed where the relevant evidence and witnesses were located in Poland and plaintiff was engaging in forum-shopping.

(United States Second Circuit) - Investment banker's petition for review of the SEC's affirmance of the New York Stock Exchange's (NYSE) finding that petitioner violated NYSE Rule 476(a)(6) by disclosing a client's confidential information to a third party, the petition is denied where: 1) a violation of the rule did not require bad faith; 2) mere unethical conduct was sufficient for violation of the rule outside the breach of contract context; and 3) summary judgment was appropriate on the issue of petitioner's guilt.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - In Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceedings in which the trustee filed an adversary action against the defendants claiming fraudulent conveyance under the section 4(a)(2) of the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act, judgment in favor of the trustee is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) bankruptcy court did not commit clear error in finding that the statutory condition for a fraudulent conveyance was satisfied; and 2) district court's ruling with respect to the dividend is reversed as the trustee is entitled to the dividend because it was an integral part of the leveraged buy-out.

(United States Third Circuit) - In an adversary proceeding brought by the trustee of a corporation and the subsidiaries it had acquired in related leveraged buy-outs, seeking to recover payments the shareholders of the acquired corporations had received for their shares on the grounds that the payments to them had been fraudulent transfers avoidable under Delaware law and the Bankruptcy Code, grant of shareholders' motion to dismiss is affirmed as, in accordance with prior case law, the payments were exempt settlement payments under section 546(e).

(United States Third Circuit) - District court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the Secretary of the United States Department of Health and Human Services, denying a reimbursement claim for loss on depreciable assets resulting from a merger between two non-profit medical corporations is vacated and remanded where: 1) the Secretary's interpretation of the related party regulations, requiring examination of whether the parties were related pre- and post-merger, is contrary to the plain language of the regulations, and under the proper, pre-merger test, the parties were not related at the time of the transaction; and 2) the district court's determination that the merger was not a bona fide sale was not based on substantial evidence, in light of errors made in determining the value of certain assets.

(United States Second Circuit) - 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.

(United States Second Circuit) - 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.

(United States Federal Circuit) - In one of the last Winstar cases arising out of the savings and loan crisis of the late 1970s and early 1980s, involving a plaintiff's suit alleging that the adoption of the FIRREA and its implementing regulations breached the government's obligations under the supervisory merger contracts, judgment of the trial court in favor of the plaintiff is affirmed in part and remanded in part where: 1) the trial court did not commit clear err in finding that it was foreseeable that the breach would result in lost profits to plaintiff in an amount commensurate with the ultimate award for lost profits; 2) the trial court did not err in finding of a causal connection between the government's breach of contract and plaintiff's sale of RFC (a mortgage banking company); 3) the trial court did not err in awarding lost profit damages attributable to plaintiff's forced sale of RFC; 4) the trial court permissibly concluded that NAMCO (mortgage company) was a reasonable commercial substitute for RFC, and its purchase thus qualified as mitigation for the loss of RFC; but 5) the case is remanded to allow the trial court to determine whether an error was made in offsetting plaintiff's mitigation costs by NAMCO's retained earnings through 1997 and, if so, how to correct the error.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Judgment of the Tax Court that plaintiff could not deduct from its taxable income either the amount it paid to the states or the legal expenses that it had incurred in the litigation, involving the acquisition of Blue Cross Blue Shield insurance companies, is affirmed as, under the application of the "origin of the claim" doctrine, costs incurred in defending the lawsuit were capital expenditures and so could not be deducted as ordinary and necessary business expenses.

(Supreme Court of Delaware) - In an objection to the Vice Chancellor's approval of a settlement among a majority of Countrywide stockholders, Countrywide directors, and Bank of America (BOA), related to Countrywide's merger with BOA, denial of the objection is affirmed where the Vice Chancellor did not abuse his discretion by holding that objector's derivative suit claims for breach of asserted duties were worthless and, therefore, added no conceivable value to the merger.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In an action claiming that Cingular Wireless, after its merger with AT&T, disregarded its obligations under plaintiff's phone service contract with AT&T by failing to provide adequate service coverage and requiring plaintiff to sign a different contract with defendant if he desired to get the service that AT&T had contracted to provide under the first agreement, and that Cingular misrepresented and omitted key facts about the consequence of the merger to the FCC, dismissal of the complaint is affirmed in part where: 1) "all the advantages that only the nation's largest wireless company can provide" was a vague statement and provided nothing concrete upon which plaintiff could reasonably rely; 2) plaintiff failed to allege that he actually read or heard the alleged misrepresentations; and 3) violations of the common law of unfair competition and breach of contract did not alone violate California's Unfair Competition Law. However, the dismissal is reversed in part where plaintiff's complaint sufficiently stated a claim that Cingular breached its contract with him.

(United States DC Circuit) - In a petition for review of the Surface Transportation Board's approval of the acquisition of certain railroads by another railroad, the petition is denied where: 1) one petitioner lacked standing because, if the board's decision were overturned, the construction authorization would not be affected and no new environmental impact statement would be required for the area; and 2) the board did not abuse its discretion in approving the transaction.

(California Court of Appeal) - In a stockholder's suit against a company and individual directors, claiming that both the acquisition process, and the common stock arising from the acquisition were unfair, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded where: 1) the doctrine of shareholder ratification does not bar the intervenor's claims; 2) the intervenor's complaint, which consists of a single cause of action states facts sufficient for a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duties as to the individual directors; and 3) trial court's judgment sustaining the demurrer as to the company is affirmed.

(United States DC Circuit) - In an action challenging the Secretary of Health and Human Services' denial of plaintiff's claim for reimbursement regarding a $2.9 million loss allegedly incurred by a Medicare provider when it merged with plaintiff through a "statutory merger," summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) the parties involved bargained in good faith and the consideration tendered reasonably reflected fair market value; and 2) the Secretary's application of the reasonable consideration requirement to the merger was not an impermissible retroactive imposition of a new standard as set out in PM A-00-76.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - In an insolvent corporation's suit against defendant-corporation for tortious interference with its merger agreement, district court's judgment awarding defendant about $1.2 million in legal fees after ruling in favor of defendant and holding the insolvent corporation's board of directors personally liable is reversed as, under Nev. Rev. Stat. section 78.747, there isn't any fraud as plaintiff's thin capitalization was both the reason why the deal had been proposed and the dominant feature in the deal's structure. Furthermore, when plaintiff signed a contract promising to reimburse defendant's legal expenses if litigation ensued, defendant knew beyond doubt that plaintiff would be unable to keep that promise unless the merger closed. Thus, the court is not aware of any statute or decision holding that investors in a thinly capitalized corporation are personally liable for its debts to a contracting partner when that partner, with knowledge of the corporation's insolvency, signs without getting a guaranty from the investors.

(United States Eighth Circuit) - In a breach of contract action arising from failed negotiations for the acquisition and management of a financially struggling trucking company, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) the alleged contract was merely an agreement to agree in the future and did not constitute a valid contract because the necessary Stock Purchase Agreement was never signed by the parties; and 2) because the memorandum explicitly stated that it was not the final contract, plaintiff could not have justifiably relied on its contents.

(United States Eighth Circuit) - District court's denial of plaintiff's Rule 60(d)(3) motion to vacate an underlying consent judgment involving a series of trademark-related actions stemming from plaintiff's sale of a seafood-products business to defendant is affirmed as, given the facts, and given the equitable requirement that the party seeking relief be free from negligence and fault, the district court clearly did not abuse its discretion in finding equitable relief inappropriate in this case.

(Supreme Court of Delaware) - In a proceeding under Article IV, Section 11(8) of the Delaware Constitution and Supreme Court Rule 41 on a question of law certified to the Delaware Supreme Court from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, the court answers the certified question as follows: plaintiffs in a double derivative action under Delaware law who were pre-merger shareholders in the acquired company and who were current shareholders, by virtue of a stock-for-stock merger in the post-merger parent company, need not also demonstrate that at the time of the alleged wrongdoing at the acquired company: (a) they owned stock in the acquiring company, and (b) the acquiring company owned stock in the acquired company.

(United States Sixth Circuit) - In a company's suit under section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA) to vacate or modify the arbitration award against it, district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the union is affirmed where: 1) the arbitrator did not exceed his authority by interpreting the CBA in a way that allowed the company to be found liable for a breach; 2) the arbitrator did not exceed the scope of his authority to decide a representational issue in this case because the arbitrator's successor decision was permissible in furtherance of his interpretation of the CBA; 3) the award's remedy does not violate public policy; and 4) the arbitrator did not dispense his own brand of industrial justice.

(United States Second Circuit) - In a RICO action alleging injury arising from the activities of an international criminal enterprise, or more specifically, "a massive racketeering scheme to take over a substantial portion of the Russian oil industry", dismissal of the action is affirmed where: 1) the question of the justiciability of the RICO claims was properly one of whether the complaint adequately stated a claim for relief; and 2) because the RICO statute lacked a clear statement of extraterritorial reach, plaintiff's claims were barred.

(United States Eighth Circuit) - In an action by beer consumers suing to enjoin the now-consummated acquisition of Anheuser-Busch Companies, Inc. by InBev NV/SA on the ground that the transaction violated Section 7 of the Clayton Act, judgment on the pleadings for defendant is affirmed where any antitrust injury plaintiffs could prove would be both speculative and localized, and the hardship and competitive disadvantage resulting from forced divestiture would be both dramatic and certain.