Casey C. Sullivan, Esq. February 6, 2017 President Trump met with Wall Street executives on Friday, then emerged to sign an executive order that could be used to roll back Dodd-Frank regulations. The president also signed a memorandum instructing the Treasury Department to reexamine the new...
William Vogeler, Esq. February 3, 2017 As President Trump's economic policies take shape, observers predict a surge in mergers this year. It may also bring back merger litigation, which slowed down in the last years of the Obama administration. Trump's new chairman of the Federal...
William Vogeler, Esq. February 2, 2017 Maybe Mark Zuckerberg should have taken the blue pill. The "blue pill" reference comes from The Matrix, a sci-fi movie in which one character bemoans the day he realized the virtual world was not real. Zuckerberg, stunned by a...
February 8, 2017 Intellectual Property, Patent, Dispute Resolution & Arbitration, Antitrust & Trade Regulation (United States Second Circuit) - In a complaint allege that defendants delayed competitors from marketing generic versions of the diabetes drug ACTOS by falsely describing two patents to the Food and Drug Administration, thereby causing plaintiffs to pay monopoly prices for the drug in violation of state-law analogs of the Sherman Act, the district court's dismissal of the complaint for failure to plausibly allege that the false descriptions caused the delay is: 1) affirmed in part to the extent plaintiffs' theory posits a delay in the marketing of generic alternatives to ACTOS by all the generic applicants other than Teva, where plaintiffs' theory presupposes that these applicants were aware of Takeda's allegedly false patent descriptions when they filed their applications, which is not supported by well-pleaded allegations and 2) vacated in part to the extent plaintiffs' theory as to Teva does not require any knowledge of the false patent descriptions, where plaintiffs plausibly alleged that Takeda delayed Teva’s market entry.
February 2, 2017 Corp. Governance, Contracts, Corporation & Enterprise Law (California Court of Appeal) - In an action for breach of an indemnity agreement, the trial court's grant of summary judgment requiring defendant to pay plaintiff approximately $6.07 million pursuant to the indemnity agreement is affirmed where although the signatory did not have actual authority to execute the indemnity agreement on defendant's behalf, in these circumstances, the person's signature binds defendant pursuant to former Corporations Code section 17157(d) (now section 17703.01(d)), provided that the other party to the agreement does not have actual knowledge of the person's lack of authority to execute the agreement on behalf of defendant.
January 18, 2017 Bankruptcy Law, Injury & Tort Law, Corporation & Enterprise Law, Corp. Governance (California Court of Appeal) - In a complaint alleging breach of fiduciary duty by defendant, a former partner and fifty percent owner of plaintiff corporation, the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendants is affirmed over plaintiff's meritless arguments that: 1) the district court incorrectly applied the doctrine of collateral estoppel; and 2) Chapter 15 of the United States Bankruptcy Code prevents the district court from giving preclusive effect to the Cayman court’s factual findings.
If no case summaries appear in this area, there are no new case summaries this week.
You are receiving this mailing because you
subscribed as *|EMAIL|
* to receive newsletters on FindLaw.com. FindLaw's case summaries are
copyrighted material and are not intended for republication without prior approval.
You may, however, freely redistribute this email in its entirety.
Questions or concerns about our Newsletter layout or content? Contact us!