We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.
Lexology logo
  Request new password

Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 1-10 of 54,736

Twombly meets Leegin - failure of plaintiff to allege "plausible" entitlement to relief constitutes failure to allege "antitrust injury"

  • Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • January 8 2009

In New England Carpenters Health Benefits Fund v. McKesson Corp., 573 F.Supp.2d 431 (Aug. 26, 2008), the District Court for the District of Massachusetts dismissed a national class action antitrust complaint, borrowing from the recent United States Supreme Court decisions in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S.Ct. 1955 (2007), and Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. v. PSKS, Inc., 127 S.Ct. 2705 (2007

Secondhand smoke in common areas may constitute a public nuisance

  • Bryan Cave LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • January 16 2009

In a recent California appellate court case, Birke v. Oakwood Worldwide, 09 C.D.O.S. 409 (2009), the court validated a public nuisance cause of action arising out of an apartment owner’s failure to limit secondhand smoke in outdoor common areas

Societe Civile Succession Richard Guino v. Jean-Emmanuel Renoir, et al

  • Loeb & Loeb LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • December 17 2008

A trust established by the family of Richard Guino, an assistant to French sculptor Pierre-Auguste Renoir, brought a copyright infringement claim against Renoir’s great-grandson and an art gallery in Scottsdale, Arizona

District of Columbia high court addresses availability of general liability insurance for allegations of marketing alcohol to minors

  • Hunton & Williams LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • January 16 2009

The District of Columbia Court of Appeals affirmed a trial court's ruling on November 26, 2008, that allegations of unfair business practices, negligence and corrupt activity that do not seek damages because of bodily injury or property damage would not be covered under an insured's general liability insurance contract

The Second Circuit confirms that bankruptcy principles trump common law equity

  • White & Case LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • January 15 2009

When a creditor seeks equitable relief in a bankruptcy court, must the court always follow common law principles of equity?

Failure to timely file SEC reports is not a default under certain indenture reporting covenants

  • White & Case LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • January 13 2009

Companies that have issued or plan to issue debt securities are facing an unusual confluence of circumstances: a severely discounted secondary debt market combined with an increasing level of internal corporate investigation activity resulting from, among other things, requirements imposed by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act

Cornerstone Report: securities class action filings soar in 2008 due to an increase in filings against financial services firms

  • Edwards Wildman Palmer LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • January 15 2009

Cornerstone Research, in cooperation with Stanford Law School's Securities Class Action Clearinghouse, recently released its report on federal securities class action filings in 2008

Avoiding “documentation disadvantages” in OTC derivatives collateral valuation disputes

  • Sutherland Asbill & Brennan LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • January 7 2009

Turbulent and illiquid markets have led to an increase in disputes between counterparties to derivatives contracts over the posting of collateral

FCRA completely preempts California's CCRAA

  • Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • January 6 2009

Question: Does the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act preempt all actions filed under California's Consumer Credit Reporting Agency Act?

Disagreement with internal policy or procedure does not give rise to CEPA claim

  • Ogletree Deakins
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • January 9 2009

In a second CEPA case, the Appellate Division held that the plaintiff’s repeated complaints about internal management decisions do not give rise to a viable claim under the Act