Business Torts Conflict of Laws

Read Business Torts updates, news, and legal commentary from leading lawyers and law firms:
News & Analysis as of

The U.S. Supreme Court Clarifies the Procedure for Unconstitutional “Core” Matters Under Stern v. Marshall in Executive Benefits...

In 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Stern v. Marshall, 131 S.Ct. 2594. In Stern, the Court was faced with the question of whether the Bankruptcy Court had statutory and Constitutional authority to decide a counterclaim...more

Utah Federal Court Dismisses Putative Class’s “True Lender” Claims Against Online Merchant

On May 23, the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah dismissed a putative class action filed against an ecommerce merchant for allegedly operating a financing program that violated various California laws, including...more

ERISA Litigation: What Benefits and Other Professionals Need to Know

In This Presentation: - Stephens v. Citation Corp. (N.D. Ala. 2010) (Acker, J.) - Erisa Topics Today - ERISA Preemption: Good or Bad? - Provident Internal Memorandum re: ERISA, Oct. 2,...more

Internal Affairs Doctrine May Not Control Alter Ego Liability

The internal affairs doctrine “is a conflict of laws principle which recognizes that only one State should have the authority to regulate a corporation’s internal affairs — matters peculiar to the relationships among or...more

The Limits Of SLUSA Preemption

In 1995, the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (“PSLRA”) was passed to limit frivolous and unwarranted securities lawsuits. 15 U.S.C. §78u–4. While private securities litigation is an indispensable tool in which...more

Does the Business Judgment Rule Really Exist in Georgia?

On April 21, 2014, the Georgia Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case of FDIC v. Loudermilk to determine whether the Business Judgment Rule really exists in Georgia. Claiming contrary decisions on the Business...more

United States Supreme Court Resolves Circuit Split and Narrows Scope of SLUSA

In Chadbourne & Parke LLP v. Troice, Nos. 12-79, 12-86 and 12-88, 2014 U.S. LEXIS 1644 (U.S. Feb. 26, 2014), the Supreme Court of the United States resolved a split in the circuits regarding whether alleged misrepresentations...more

Supreme Court Maintains Viability of State Law Claims Related to Securities Transactions

A recent Supreme Court opinion, Chadbourne & Parke LLP v. Troice, addresses the viability of class action state-law claims arising from fraudulent securities transactions. This was an opportunity for the Court to limit...more

Supreme Court Rules that the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act Does Not Preempt State Law Claims

This week, the US Supreme Court narrowed the scope of the preemption provisions of the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act (SLUSA), which bars certain state law-based securities class actions. As a result, securities...more

The Supreme Court Narrows SLUSA’s Reach and Expands the Pool of Potential Defendants Subject to State Securities Law Class Actions

On February 26, 2014, the United States Supreme Court limited the reach of the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 (SLUSA), thereby increasing the number of individuals and entities that may be surprised to...more

High Court Limits Application of Phrase “In Connection With” for Federal Securities Laws

On February 26, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Chadbourne & Parke LLP v. Troice et al. that the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 (“SLUSA”) does not preclude class action lawsuits asserting state law...more

Supreme Court Narrows The Scope Of SLUSA Preemption, Green-Lighting State Law Class Action Claims Alleging Ponzi Scheme

On February 26, 2014, the U. S. Supreme Court (“the Court”) held that the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 (“SLUSA”) did not preclude Stanford Ponzi scheme plaintiffs’ state-law class action claims because...more

Supreme Court Holds That SLUSA Does Not Preempt State Law Claims Of Investors In Stanford Ponzi Scheme

Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court limited the scope of the preemption of state law class actions afforded by the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 (SLUSA) in Chadbourne & Parke LLP v. Troice, No. 12-79 (U.S....more

SCOTUS Holds State-Law Securities Class Actions Not Precluded By Federal Law

On February 26, the Supreme Court held that the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 (Securities Litigation Act) does not preclude four state-law based class actions against firms and individuals who allegedly...more

Complex Litigation Update: SCOTUS Allows Plaintiffs’ State-Law Class Actions Against Law Firms, Financial Firms, and Others to...

On Wednesday of last week, the Supreme Court of the United States issued a 7-2 decision affirming a Fifth Circuit ruling permitting four state-law class actions to proceed against two New York law firms and others in a matter...more

U.S. Supreme Court Ruling Opens the Door to More State-Law Securities Class Actions

Today, in a 7-2 decision with Justice Breyer writing for the majority, the Supreme Court issued a narrow interpretation of when the federal Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act (“SLUSA”) preempts state-law securities...more

Expansion of California’s Unfair Competition Law

In yet another expansion of California’s unfair competition law, the California Supreme Court recently ruled that state law claimants may base a cause of action on a “borrowed” federal statute even though the U.S. Congress...more

Second Circuit Holds Delaware Fiduciary Duty Law Preempted By Federal Interest In Fiscal Stability

In Starr International Co. v. Federal Reserve Bank of New York, No. 12-5022-cv, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 1770 (2d. Cir. Jan. 29, 2014), the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal of claims...more

Complete Versus Conflict Preemption In ERISA Cases

Both state and federal courts have original jurisdiction over ERISA benefits actions. See29 U.S.C. § 1132(e)(1), ERISA § 502(e)(1). But litigants (and defendants in particular) have historically preferred the federal courts,...more

Courts Disagree over Jury Trial Right in ERISA Fiduciary Cases

Federal district courts in Missouri and Vermont have come to opposite conclusions regarding a right to jury trial with respect to fiduciary breach claims brought under ERISA section 502(a)(2). Applying the Supreme Court’s...more

Sorting Laundry: California Court Reaffirms Scope Of Uniform Trade Secrets Act

Angelica Textile Services, Inc. v. Park, No. D062405 (October 15, 2013): A California Court of Appeal recently held that claims of breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and unfair competition are not “displaced” or...more

California Appellate Court Reaffirms the Trade Secret Displacement (Preemption) Doctrine

Courts continue to define the scope of the emerging trade secret displacement doctrine, (commonly referred to as preemption) which stems from California's Uniform Trade Secrets Act ("UTSA"). The UTSA contains a relatively...more

The Way to San Jose: Not Through Federal Court

Frustrated with the inability of the Oakland Athletics to commit to relocate to San Jose in the face of the territorial objections of the San Francisco Giants – and by the failure of Major League Baseball (MLB) to bring the...more

Supreme Court May Decide Issue of the Level of Specificity Required Under Rule 9(b) in FCA Whistleblower Suits

The United States Supreme Court recently indicated its potential interest in hearing arguments in a key False Claims Act (FCA) case that would address a circuit split over the important issue of the level of specificity of...more

Must Suits/Actions To Enforce Section 25401 Be Brought In The Federal Courts?

Suppose Congress enacts a statute providing that the federal courts will have exclusive jurisdiction of all lawsuits brought to enforce any liability or duty under a federal act or the rules adopted under that act. If a...more

80 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 4

Follow Business Torts Updates on: