News

Business

[02/07] Key states move closer to foreclosure-abuse deal
[02/07] Glencore, Xstrata agree on merger terms
[02/07] Oracle rejects $272M SAP award, wants new trial

Bankruptcy Law

[02/02] Gentry v. Siegel
In bankruptcy proceedings in which former employees of the debtor filed claims for unpaid overtime wages, the district court's judgment affirming the bankruptcy court's denial of a Rule 9014 motion and its refusal to allow the claimants to pursue class actions is affirmed, where: 1) the bankruptcy court was within its discretion to rule that the bankruptcy process would provide a process superior to the class action process for resolving the claims of former employees; 2) notice of the bankruptcy process to the named claimants was not constitutionally deficient; and 3) with respect to unnamed claimants, the named claimants lacked standing to challenge the notice.

[01/30] Matter of Thorpe Insulation Co.
In Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings, the district court's affirmance of the bankruptcy court's orders denying a creditor's motion to compel arbitration and disallowing its claim is affirmed, where: 1) the resolution of the creditor's claim was a core matter in the bankruptcy; 2) the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in denying the creditor's motion to compel arbitration; 3) the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion by declining to give the creditor further opportunity for discovery; 4) the creditor's claim was properly disallowed because because the debtor's covenants in a settlement agreement were purported prepetition waivers of the protections of the Bankruptcy Code, which need not be permitted.

[01/27] Matter of Meruelo Maddux Properties, Inc.
In Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings involving the question whether the debtor was subject to the single asset real estate provisions of the Bankruptcy Code, the district court's holding that the single asset real estate provisions applied is affirmed, where: 1) the debtor, which existed solely to operate a 92-unit apartment complex, could be characterized as a single asset real estate debtor under the Bankruptcy Code; 2) the plain language of the Code gives no basis for a "whole business enterprise" exception to single asset real estate debtor status that would allow the court to consider parent corporation and sister subsidiaries; and 3) the district court did not err in its approach to granting relief from the automatic stay by leaving questions about whether the debtor timely took timely corrective action to the bankruptcy court in the first instance.

[01/25] Flores v. Kmart Corp.
In a wrongful death action brought against a corporation that had filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy pursuant to which a bankruptcy court had entered an order confirming a reorganization plan and discharging all known and unknown claims against the corporation, the trial court's demurrer dismissal of the complaint is reversed, where on the limited record of bankruptcy proceedings provided by the corporation, and consistent with Fourteenth Amendment due process principles, the corporation failed to demonstrate, at the demurrer stage, that the approval of the reorganization plan barred all of the plaintiffs' claims.

Commercial Law

[02/01] In re American Express Merchants' Litigation
In a class action asserting Sherman Act claims, brought against a charge card issuer whose card acceptance agreement purported to preclude a merchant from bringing a class action lawsuit, the district court's grant of the defendant's motion to compel arbitration and dismissal of the case is reversed, where the cost of plaintiffs' individually arbitrating their dispute with the defendant would be prohibitive, effectively depriving them of the statutory protections of the antitrust laws, and thus the class action waiver in the arbitration provision was unenforceable.

[01/27] C9 Ventures v. SVC-West, L.P.
In a personal injury suit in which a lessor of helium-filled tanks used to inflate festive balloons cross-complained against the lessee to enforce an indemnification provision on the back of an unsigned invoice, the trial court's judgment in favor of the lessor and award of attorney fees to it is reversed, where: 1) the lessee did not manifest assent to the terms on the back of the unsigned invoice by course of dealing or course of performance, or under basic contract law; 2) the lessee did not sign the invoice or otherwise expressly agree to its terms; 3) an unsigned invoice itself is not a contract, and repeated delivery of a particular form does not make the form part of the parties' agreement; 4) payment of the invoice merely constituted the lessee's performance of the obligation under the oral contract to pay for the rental of the helium-filled tanks; and 5) assuming the transaction was a sale of goods covered by division 2 of the California Commercial Code, the indemnification provision was not an additional term of the contract under section 2207 of the Commercial Code.

[01/24] Long v. Tommy Hilfiger U.S.A. Inc.
In a putative class action against a men's clothing retailer alleging that its printing of “EXPIRY: 04/##” on a credit card receipt willfully violated the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA)'s prohibition against printing the expiration date of the a credit card upon any receipt provided to the cardholder at the point of the sale, the district court's grant of the defendant's motion to dismiss is affirmed, where: 1) FACTA prohibits a merchant from printing expiration date information on a receipt provided to the consumer, even if the year is redacted; but 2) the defendant's interpretation of FACTA, although erroneous, was at least objectively reasonable, and thus there was no "willful" violation that could support a claim.

[01/24] Mabey Bridge & Shore, Inc. v. Schoch
In a suit by a corporation engaged in the business of supplying temporary steel bridges for construction projects, seeking a declaration that the Pennsylvania Steel Products Procurement Act, as interpreted and enforced by the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT), is unconstitutional, and requesting a preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining PennDOT from prohibiting the use of the company's temporary bridges on its projects, the district court's grant of summary judgment against the company on all its claims is affirmed, where: 1) the state Steel Act was not preempted by the federal Buy America Act and related federal regulations; 2) the Steel Act is not unconstitutional under the dormant Commerce Clause; 3) PennDOT's actions did not violate the Contract Clause; and 4) PennDOT's application of the Steel Act did not violate the Equal Protection Clause.

Consumer Protection

Dispute Resolution & Arbitration

[02/03] Scandinavian Reinsurance Co. Ltd. v. Saint Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Co.
The district court's grant of a petition to vacate an arbitral award is reversed, and on remand the district court is instructed to grant a cross-petition to confirm the award, where there was insufficient evidence before the district court on which to base a finding of "evident partiality" within the meaning of the Federal Arbitration Act despite the failure of two arbitrators to disclose their concurrent service as arbitrators in another, arguably similar, arbitration.

[02/03] Biller v. Toyota Motor Corp.
In a dispute over the violation of an employment severance agreement, the district court's confirmation of an arbitration award is affirmed, where: 1) the severance agreement called for arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act; 2) the district court did not err by not conducting a merits review of the award; and 3) the arbitrator did not manifestly disregard the law governing the severance agreement. Denial of the appellant's motion for contempt is also affirmed, where under the plain terms of a permanent injunction issued by the court, the employer was entitled to delete documents from the appellant's computer.

[02/03] Sauer v. Dep't of Education
In a suit by a California state agency seeking review of an arbitration award that made it liable to a blind vendor for failing to sue the federal General Services Administration (GSA) to vindicate the rights of the vendor to conduct business on federal property, the district court's judgment affirming the award is reversed, where: 1) the arbitration panel committed a legal error when it interpreted the Randolph-Sheppard Vending Stand Act as requiring the state agency to bring an action against GSA, and that the agency's failure to do so made it liable for compensatory damages; and 2) because the arbitration panel's ruling was not in accordance with law, it had to be set aside under the Administrative Procedure Act.

Associated Press text, photo, graphic, audio and/or video material shall not be published, broadcast, rewritten for broadcast or publication or redistributed directly or indirectly in any medium. Neither these AP materials nor any portion thereof may be stored in a computer except for personal and non-commercial use. Users may not download or reproduce a substantial portion of the AP material found on this web site. AP will not be held liable for any delays, inaccuracies, errors or omissions therefrom or in the transmission or delivery of all or any part thereof or for any damages arising from any of the foregoing.