News

Business

[08/13] Ohio man buys new truck with thousands of coins
[08/01] Clothing store opens bar in middle of sales floor
[08/19] Dividend checks to be distributed early in Alaska

More...

Corporate Governance

[08/15] Ausam Energy announces agreement to sell Australian subsidiary and change of auditors
[08/15] Yahoo selects Biondi, Chapple as new board members
[08/15] Republic again rejects Waste Management buyout bid

More...

Employment Practices

[08/15] Ask AP: Broken hips, illegal immigrants' impact
[08/15] 32 protesters arrested outside Disneyland
[08/14] BP says TNK-BP chief barred from office by Russia

More...

Case Summaries

Commercial Law

[08/18] Golden W. Refining Co. v. SunTrust Bank
In an action brought by plaintiff to draw on a letter of credit issued to it by defendant-bank's predecessor, judgment for plaintiff is affirmed over claims that the district court erred by: 1) holding that the letter of credit was not "perpetual" under Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) section 5-106(d) and thereby had not automatically expired before plaintiff made a draw against it; 2) by rejecting defendant's waiver argument; and 3) by concluding that plaintiff's specific performance and breach of contract claims were not precluded by the exclusive remedies available under Article 5 of the UCC.

[08/18] Am. Needle, Inc. v. Nat'l Football League
In an antitrust case alleging that the NFL's exclusive headwear licensing agreement with Reebok International violated sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) a motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f) to allow additional discovery was properly denied where plaintiff did not identify the evidence it sought to discover; 2) NFL teams are a "single entity" for purposes of licensing their intellectual property; and 3) as a single entity, the teams were free to license their intellectual property on an exclusive basis.

[08/15] Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Hoen
In an action brought by Costco against the Washington State Liquor Control Board and certain state officials contending that several of the state's liquor laws violate the Commerce Clause and federal antitrust law, a ruling in favor of Costco on most of its claims but finding that it could not recover attorney's fees and costs from an intervenor is affirmed in part and vacated in part where: 1) intervenor was not liable for fees and costs under 42 U.S.C. section 1988(b); but 2) a remand was required on the issue of fee liability under 15 U.S.C. section 26 for a determination of whether Costco "substantially prevailed" on its antitrust claims within the meaning of that statute.

More...

International Law

[08/15] Chhay v. Mukasey
Petition for review of a decision denying Cambodian national petitioner asylum and related relief is denied where: 1) the court lacks jurisdiction over an asylum claim because she had not exhausted her administrative remedies; 2) the record did not contain evidence that petitioner experienced any persecution prior to her exodus from Cambodia; 3) petitioner did not satisfy burden of proof of likelihood of future persecution; 4) petitioner did not prove that it was more likely than not that she will be tortured if removed to her homeland; and 5) the IJ fully considered documentation proffered by petitioner and did not violate her right to due process, and put sufficient weight to evidence of general conditions in Cambodia.

[08/14] In re: Dynamic Random Access Memory (DRAM) Antitrust Litig.
In an antitrust action brought against U.S. and foreign manufacturers and sellers of DRAM computer memory by a British computer manufacturer that purchased DRAM outside of the U.S., dismissal of the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvement Act (FTAIA) is affirmed where: 1) "but for" causation cannot suffice for the FTAIA domestic injury exception to apply, and instead a direct or proximate causal relationship is required; 2) under such standard, plaintiff failed to establish a causal link between the domestic effects of higher U.S. prices for DRAM and its foreign injury; and 3) there was no abuse of discretion in denying leave to amend.

[08/14] In Re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001
In tort actions brought by persons who incurred losses in September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, dismissal of claims against certain Saudi Arabian defendants for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction is affirmed where: 1) the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) grants immunity to individual officials of a foreign government for their official-capacity acts, and thus four Saudi princes were entitled to immunity; 2) the district court properly concluded that a Saudi High Commission was an "agency or instrumentality" of the Kingdom and therefore entitled to immunity under the FSIA; 3) none of the exceptions to the FSIA applied; and 4) plaintiffs did not establish a prima facie case that the district court had jurisdiction over defendants.

More...