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.

Search results

Order by: most recent most popular relevance



Results:1-10 of 526

Supreme Court Hears Oral Argument In Significant FDCPA Case
  • Baker & Hostetler LLP
  • USA
  • April 27 2017

This month, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in a case with potential to affect companies that purchase consumer debt and then collect it for


What You Don’t Say Can Hurt You
  • Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP
  • USA
  • September 12 2016

On September 8, 2016, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion interpreting the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”)1 in a way


California Plaintiffs Say that Size Matters: Consumer Fraud Class Action Challenges Slack-Fill in Protein Products
  • Mintz
  • USA
  • May 27 2016

According to named plaintiffs in a consumer fraud action filed in December in the Southern District of California, size matters when making it comes


Colorado Federal Court rules that former employer stated a claim against former executive and his new employer under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act regardless of differing circuit interpretations of the act
  • Seyfarth Shaw LLP
  • USA
  • March 9 2012

In its order denying defendants’ motion to dismiss in SBM Site Services, LLC v. Garrett, et al., Case No. 10-cv-00385, a Colorado federal court identified a circuit split over the interpretation of “unauthorized access” under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and then found a former employer had stated a CFAA claim against a former executive and his new employer regardless of the different circuit interpretations based upon his post-termination computer activities.


Ninth Circuit latest to permit corporate liability under alien tort statute; Supreme Court to resolve circuit split in 2012
  • Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
  • USA
  • November 23 2011

In Sarei v. Rio Tinto, PLC, Nos. 02-56256, 02-56390, 09-56381, 2011 WL 5041927 (9th Cir. Oct. 25, 2011), the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit became the latest Circuit to hold that corporations may be held liable under the Alien Tort Statute (“ATS”), 28 U.S.C. 1350.


Second Circuit's rejection of corporate liability under the alien tort statute stands
  • Hogan Lovells
  • USA
  • February 8 2011

In a short, but sharply divided decision rendered on 4 February 2011, the Second Circuit denied rehearing in banc of a 17 September 2010 panel decision in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum holding that because corporate liability is not recognized under customary international law, federal courts do not have jurisdiction to hear cases brought against corporations under the U.S. Alien Tort Statute.


Alien Tort Statute update: Second Circuit denies petition for rehearing en banc in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum
  • Foley Hoag LLP
  • USA
  • February 7 2011

On February 4, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals denied plaintiffs' petition for a rehearing en banc in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum, 621 F.3d 111 (2d Cir. 2010).


Everyone makes mistakes? Debt collection after Jerman v. Carlisle
  • Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz PC
  • USA
  • July 15 2010

On April 21, 2010, the United States Supreme Court handed down an opinion that dramatically increases debt collectors’ liability for violations of the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act.


Supreme Court adopts “nerve center” test for corporations’ citizenship
  • Jorden Burt LLP
  • USA
  • July 7 2010

In Hertz Corp v Friend, the Supreme Court resolved a split between the Circuits on the issue of a corporation's citizenship for purposes of the federal diversity statute, 28 U.S.C. 1332(c)(1), which states that for the purposes of the diversity and removal statutes “a corporation shall be deemed to be a citizen of any State by which it has been incorporated and of the State where it has its principal place of business .”


Second Circuit wades into the PSLRA safe harbor - the lessons of Slayton v. American Express for forward-looking statements
  • Latham & Watkins LLP
  • USA
  • June 10 2010

The Second Circuit has issued its first opinion analyzing the 15 year-old safe harbor provision in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA) for forward-looking statements that become the subject of a Rule 10b-5 lawsuit.