Search results
Order by most recent / most popular / relevance
Results: 1-10 of 14
Third Circuit holds that non-compete clauses survive a change in corporate ownership
- Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP
- -
- USA
- -
- January 29 2010
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has held that a non-compete clause is enforceable by a corporation after it has undergone “a substantial change in stock ownership.”
Second Circuit holds that corporations cannot be sued under alien tort statute
- Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP
- -
- USA
- -
- September 24 2010
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has ruled that corporations are not subject to liability under “customary international law”, otherwise known as the “law of nations” and that, as such, corporations cannot be held liable under the U.S. Alien Tort Statute
Weak internal controls and GAAP violations supported inference of scienter in securities class action
- Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP
- -
- USA
- -
- December 18 2009
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York denied defendants’ motion to dismiss in a consolidated securities class action lawsuit, where defendant corporation had to restate its financials after making a series of disclosures regarding poor accounting controls
Arbitration provision upheld despite competing agreements
- Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP
- -
- USA
- -
- October 2 2009
The District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania compelled arbitration of investors’ claims based on an arbitration provision in subscription agreements despite the fact that the limited partnership agreement, which included an integration clause, contained no arbitration clause
Corporate veil allegations survive motion to dismiss in embezzlement case
- Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP
- -
- USA
- -
- January 22 2010
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois denied defendants’ motion to dismiss, ruling that, among other things, plaintiff properly pled the elements for piercing the corporate veil where there were particular allegations demonstrating a “unity of interest” between the individual and corporate defendants
Court upholds forum-selection clause in independent contractor’s contract
- Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP
- -
- USA
- -
- January 29 2010
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas has ruled that the breach of contract claims asserted by several of the company’s sales agents were covered by forum-selection clauses in their contracts, rejecting the sales agents’ argument that the clauses were unenforceable
Communications, single meeting insufficient to confer personal jurisdiction
- Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP
- -
- USA
- -
- February 19 2010
The U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado adopted a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, holding that communications directed to Colorado and a personal meeting in Colorado did not provide a basis for personal jurisdiction over defendants in Colorado
Third Circuit rejects novel government securities fraud theory
- Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP
- -
- USA
- -
- April 16 2010
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the lower court’s dismissal of certain novel theories on which the government predicated a criminal indictment against two high-ranking executives of a pharmaceutical company
Second Circuit holds that interpreting contract as requiring exclusivity would be illogical
- Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP
- -
- USA
- -
- June 11 2010
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has affirmed a district court ruling that held that the “plain meaning” of the contract between AT&T Corporation and KATEL Limited Liability Company with respect to the exchange of telephone calls between the United States and Kyrgyzstan did not require exclusivity
Fiduciary duty imputation case proceeds to trial
- Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP
- -
- USA
- -
- January 21 2011
The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey denied a motion for partial summary judgment, ruling that the contested issue, whether a conceded breach of fiduciary duty by two individual defendants could be imputed to corporate defendants, should go to trial
