You may forward this e-mail in its entirety.
Table of Contents
- In re: Ran
- Shaw v. Marriott Int'l., Inc.
- KYD, Inc. v. US
- Honda of Am. Mfg., Inc. v. US
FindLaw's case summaries are copyrighted material and are not intended for republication without prior approval. You may, however, freely redistribute this e-mail in its entirety. To view the full-text of cases you must sign in
U.S. 5th Circuit, May 28, 2010
In re: Ran, No. 09-20288
In an Israeli bankruptcy receiver's appeal of the district court's denial of his petition for recognition under Chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code of an ongoing, involuntary bankruptcy proceeding pending in Israel, the order is affirmed where: 1) it was evident that, when the receiver filed the petition for recognition, the debtor's habitual residence was in Houston, Texas; 2) while sufficient to rebut the presumption that debtor's center of main interest was in the U.S., the receiver's evidence was nevertheless insufficient to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Israel was the location of debtor’s center of main interests; and 3) at the time the receiver filed his petition for recognition, debtor possessed neither a secondary residence nor place of employment in Israel.
U.S. D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, May 28, 2010
Shaw v. Marriott Int'l., Inc., No. 08-7142
In an action under the District of Columbia consumer protection statute to challenge the pricing practices of Marriott's Russian hotels, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed in part where the District of Columbia had an insufficient interest in the dispute for its law to apply. However, the judgment is reversed in part where plaintiffs proffered evidence that Marriott was responsible for their loss because it exercised some control over the franchised hotels at issue, including capping the rates they charge for rooms.
U.S. Fed. Circuit Court of Appeals, May 28, 2010
KYD, Inc. v. US, No. 09-1366
A decision of the Court of International Trade affirming the Department of Commerce's antidumping duty rate determination for polyethylene retail carrier bags that are manufactured by a Thai company and imported by plaintiff is affirmed where: 1) substantial evidence supports the antidumping margin assessed against plaintiff; 2) an AFA dumping margin determined in accordance with statutory requirements is not a punitive measure; and 3) plaintiff does not point to any statute or regulation that would entitle independent importers to a different assessment rate from the rate for importers that are affiliated with the foreign producer/exporters of the goods they import.
U.S. Fed. Circuit Court of Appeals, June 02, 2010
Honda of Am. Mfg., Inc. v. US, No. 09-1493
Decision of the Court of International Trade (CIT) affirming a Customs and Border Protection classification of Honda's oil bolts under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) is affirmed as the CIT properly interpreted and applied the Schedule in concluding that articles that are "parts of general use" under Chapter 73 cannot be classified as "parts and accessories" under Chapter 87.
FindLaw includes summaries of all Supreme and Appellate Court slip opinions posted on the official Illinois Courts site. FindLaw summaries include opinions that have not yet been released for publication and may be subject to modification, correction or withdrawal. Check the Illinois Courts site to determine if a specific opinion has been released before relying on that case as precedent.
We value your comments! Please take a moment to tell us what you think by sending us an e-mail.
Click here to subscribe to a FindLaw Newsletter. To unsubscribe, click here.
For more information about advertising in FindLaw Newsletters, click here.