(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that a manufacturer was entitled to millions of dollars in compensation for losses attributable to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Upheld the decision of a settlement program administrator, which was challenged by oil company BP.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that an Alabama-based manufacturer of commercial signs was entitled to compensation for losses attributable to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Upheld the decision of a settlement program administrator, which was challenged by oil company BP.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - In a contractual dispute between two companies in the oil-drilling business, vacated a bench trial judgment, in part. The contract related to exploratory drilling for offshore oil.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that an electrical contractor was entitled to compensation for losses attributable to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Upheld the decision of a settlement program administrator, which was challenged by oil company BP.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that a short-term vacation rental business was improperly denied compensation for losses attributable to BP's 2010 oil spill. The settlement program administrator, and the district court, misinterpreted the settlement agreement's definition of a failed business. Vacated and remanded.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - In an insurance dispute following an explosion and fire on an oil rig in Ohio, addressed arbitrability and personal jurisdiction issues. Affirmed in part and reversed in part the decision below.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed. The jury award of more than $43 mil. for the breach of a Joint Operating Agreement relating to the plugging and abandonment operation of offshore oil and gas wells in the Gulf of Mexico was affirmed because the application of Louisiana Civil Code and interpretation of the contract was appropriate. No bad faith offset entitlement was found.

(United States Third Circuit) - In long-standing litigation concerning the alleged misuse of the pesticide dibromochloropropane (DBCP) on banana farms throughout Central America and the related health effects on more than two hundred foreign agricultural workers, the Delaware District Court's application of the first-filed rule to dismiss the case with prejudice is affirmed where there was no abuse of discretion in dismissing the plaintiff's actions in favor of the first-filed litigation in Louisiana.

(United States Federal Circuit) - In a suit arising out of press releases issued by the Food and Drug Administration which warned consumers of a possible link between plaintiffs' tomatoes and an outbreak of salmonella, the Claims Court's dismissal of the amended complaint is affirmed where the press releases did not effect a regulatory taking.

(United States Supreme Court) - In a putative employment class action brought by meat processors, alleging that the donning and doffing of safety gear were integral and indispensable to their hazardous work and that employer's policy not to pay for those activities denied them overtime compensation required by the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA) and violated Iowa wage law, the Eight Circuit's affirmation of the District Court's judgment in worker's favor is affirmed where District Court did not err in certifying and maintaining the class because common questions, such as whether donning and doffing protective gear was compensable under the FLSA, were susceptible to classwide resolution even if not all of the workers wore the same gear.

(California Court of Appeal) - In an award for attorney's fees arising from an employment action in arbitration, the trial court's correction of an award of attorney's fees to plaintiff as opposed to defendant was affirmed where: 1) the arbitrator's award to employer-defendant was contrary to California Labor Code section 1194's one-way fee shifting provision; 2) statutory rights to attorney's fees are not waived or forfeited by an arbitration agreement; 3) trial court's remand to the arbitrator did not violate federal law; and 4) additional award of attorney's fees to plaintiff which was vacated as it was not supported by the arbitration agreement or statute.

(United States First Circuit) - In a suit alleging defendant breached an exclusive distribution agreement in violation of Puerto Rico's Law 75 of June 24, 1964, P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 10 section 278, the District Court's denial of a preliminary injunction against defendant and dismissal of the complaint is affirmed where plaintiff's claim was barred under Law 75's three-year statute of limitations and properly under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(f).

(United States Federal Circuit) - The final decision of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) Trademark Trial and Appeal Board refusing registration of a stylized form of the mark CHURRASCOS is affirmed over restaurant company-appellant's appeal, where: 1) the Board's decision contains no harmful legal error; and 2) the Board's finding that the mark is generic is supported by substantial evidence.

(United States First Circuit) - In a case involving a dispute over an unwritten and allegedly exclusive distributorship agreement between plaintiff and Hormel Foods Corp. under Puerto Rico's Dealer's Contracts Act (Law 75), P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 10 sections 278-278e, the district court's judgment is: 1) affirmed in part where plaintiff's exclusivity claim as presented is time-barred; and 2) reversed in part where the statute of limitations bar to recovery extends to plaintiff's Costco-related claim as well.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In putative class actions brought against ConAgra Foods in eleven states by consumers who purchased Wesson-brand cooking oil products labeled '100% Natural' during the relevant period, the district court's class certification is affirmed where the language of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure neither provides nor implies that demonstrating an administratively feasible way to identify class members is a prerequisite to class certification.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In an action brought by produce growers under the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act (PACA), brought by growers who sold their perishable agricultural products on credit to a distributor, thereby making the distributor a trustee over a PACA trust holding the perishable products and any resulting proceeds for the growers as PACA-trust beneficiaries, the district court's summary judgment in favor of the defendant is affirmed where pursuant to Boulder Fruit Express & Heger Organic Farm Sales v. Transp. Factoring, Inc., 251 F.3d 128 (9th Cir.2001), a commercially reasonable factoring agreement removes accounts receivable from the PACA trust without a trustee's breach of trust, thus defeating the growers' claims.

(United States Second Circuit) - In a putative class action alleging that New York City grocery stores operated by Whole Foods Market-defendant systematically overstated the weights of pre‐packaged food products and overcharged customers as a result, the district court's grant of defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiff's complaint for lack of Article III standing because he failed to allege a sufficient injury in fact, is vacated where plaintiff plausibly alleged an injury in fact.

(United States Second Circuit) - Dismissal of a class-action suit alleging a willful violation of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA) is affirmed because subsequent legislation clarified that receipts with credit card expiration dates do not raise a material risk of identity theft and no specific harm was alleged.

(United States Third Circuit) - Affirming a summary judgment to the defendant Tyson Foods in a dispute involving their use of the word 'Parks' in reference to hotdogs where the plaintiff once held trademark on this word's use to sell hotdogs until it failed to renew the trademark in the early 2000's.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Reversed. The court reversed the dismissal of a class action consumer fraud and deceptive business case involving cat food labeled prescription cat food that was not materially different from regular cat food. The fraud claim was sufficiently pled and the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act's safe harbor didn't apply.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. A lawsuit relating to who should pay for the cleanup of a contaminated site was dismissed because the limitations period had expired by the time the plaintiff filed suit.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Reversed and remanded. The district court’s order vacating a registered judgement is reversed, holding that a court need not have personal jurisdiction over a judgment debtor in order to “merely register” a previously obtained judgment.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Vacated and remanded. The summary judgment in a contract lawsuit over a supply contract for manufactured goods was improper because there were genuine issues of material fact.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed. The district court properly dismissed a suit brought by a man whose state court award in a Takings Clause suit against state officials was unsatisfying to him. The State was entitled to sovereign immunity.

(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. 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.

(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 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.

(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)

(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 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 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 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 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.

(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.

(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 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.

(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 Second Circuit) - In a RICO action alleging various injuries to plaintiff arising from the activities of defendants' alleged international criminal enterprise, the dismissal of the complaint is affirmed where: 1) the question of the justiciability of the RICO claims is properly one of whether the complaint adequately states a claim for relief; and 2) because the RICO statute lacked a clear statement of extraterritorial reach, plaintiff’s claims are barred.

(United States Second Circuit) - In antitrust dispute arising from a action by plaintiff seeking to prevent defendant-healthcare providers from merging, summary judgment in favor of defendants is affirmed where the district court's conclusion, that the market definition the plaintiff alleged as the basis of its claims is legally deficient, is a discretionary prerogative devoid of abuse.

(United States First Circuit) - In a dispute arising out of a merger agreement in which one party agreed to indemnify the other against a purely hypothetical tax loss, involving the issue of whether the prepayments and credits, and resulting tax refunds, affect the tax indemnification obligation of the sellers, the District Court's judgment in favor of sellers is vacated and remanded for further proceedings where; 1) the indemnification provision is ambiguous as to how the tax refunds affect the indemnification obligation of the sellers; and 2) the parties' arguments about the purpose and negotiating history of the provision cannot be resolved without the aid of a fact-finder.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed a judgment after trial in a contractual dispute between two industrial supply companies. The case involved the alleged breach of their asset purchase agreement.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Upheld an arbitration award in a business dispute involving one company's sale of certain assets to another. Affirmed the district court's confirmation of the arbitration award.

(United States Supreme Court) - Held that the federal Atomic Energy Act did not preempt a Virginia law prohibiting uranium mining. While six justices agreed that the state ban on uranium mining was not preempted, they divided on broader questions concerning statutory interpretation and preemption doctrine, and thus were unable to agree on the rationale for the decision. Justice Gorsuch delivered a plurality opinion, and several justices concurred in the judgment only.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversed. Plaintiff brought a petition for writ of mandate claiming the fee charged by Defendant, County of Alameda, for copies of official records violated Government Code section 27366. Trial court granted petition and issued a preliminary injunction against Defendant and awarded attorney fees to Plaintiff. Appeals court found that the County did not abuse its discretion in determining the fee it charged or that section 27366 was violated.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversed and remanded. The trial court sustained the Defendant’s demurrer without leave to amend to Plaintiff’s third amended complaint. The appellate court held that Plaintiff made a sufficient showing for leave to amend and directed Plaintiff to amend their complaint consistent with this opinion.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Partially affirmed, remanded. A Texas ban on public corporations obtaining package store permits did not violate Equal Protection rights, but the district court erred in finding a discriminatory nature and burden imposed by the public corporation ban.