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 199

The investors had no claim against the solicitors for breach of fiduciary duty or restitution for unjust enrichment
  • Kingsley Napley
  • United Kingdom
  • February 19 2015

The Respondents (C) had invested in a property investment scheme operated by a single purpose company (X). The offering documents consisted largely of

Say what? District court grants jury trial to stock drop plaintiff
  • Alston & Bird LLP
  • USA
  • August 30 2013

Like most such cases, the plaintiff, a putative class representative, alleged that the defendant fiduciaries should not have allowed participants in

When do “duty to defend” principles apply to a “duty to pay” policy?
  • Farella Braun + Martel LLP
  • USA
  • October 3 2012

If an insurer promises to advance “claim expenses” (including attorneys fees) arising from covered claims, does California’s broad duty to defend principles apply, such that the insured need only show the potential for coverage or must the insured show that the expenses were actually incurred defending a covered claim?

Plaintiffs seek reinstatement and reimbursement as “equitable” remedies
  • Seyfarth Shaw LLP
  • USA
  • March 5 2012

On January 30, 2012, a group of participants in Lowe’s Companies, Inc.’s Group Medical Plan, filed a class action complaint in the Southern District of New York alleging that they were wrongfully denied medical benefits.

  • Proskauer Rose LLP
  • USA
  • November 7 2011

In Fossen v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Montana, Inc., ---F.3d---, 2011 WL 4926006 (9th Cir. Oct. 18, 2011), the court held that ERISA and HIPAA preempted plaintiffs’ state law claims seeking restitution of health care coverage premiums they allegedly overpaid.

Northern District of California issues ruling of first impression on right of medical plan trustees to claw back overpayments from health care providers.
  • Seyfarth Shaw LLP
  • USA
  • October 25 2011

A medical plan’s board of trustees may proceed with its restitution claim against health care providers to collect expenses the plan paid for the treatment of plan members that were later determined to have been either excessive or excluded as not medically necessary, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California ruled on September 12, 2011.

The blame game: obtaining financial relief against directors and officers in insolvencies
  • Harneys
  • British Virgin Islands
  • August 4 2011

By virtue of his appointment, a liquidator steps into the shoes of the company and so the usual contractual, tortious and equitable remedies are actionable by the liquidator, acting in the name of the company.

Derivative suit against Bank of America alleges failures in mortgage servicing
  • Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP
  • USA
  • August 1 2011

On July 22, 2011, shareholders of Bank of America sued the corporation and certain of its executives in a derivative suit in the District of Massachusetts, claiming breach of fiduciary duty and violation of certain provisions of the Exchange Act of 1934.

Delaware Supreme Court holds that insider trading claims alleging misuse of confidential corporate information need not show injury to the corporation
  • Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
  • USA
  • July 5 2011

In Kahn et al v. Kolberg Kravis Roberts & Co., L.P., No. 1808, 2011 WL 2447690 (Del. June 20, 2011), the Delaware Supreme Court reversed the dismissal of breach of fiduciary duty claims brought by minority shareholders against corporate officers and a controlling shareholder

Estate not entitled to discount the value of three marital trusts for claims by ESOP members against the marital trusts’ assets Estate of Foster v. Comm’r, T.C. Memo 2011-95 (4282011)
  • Proskauer Rose LLP
  • USA
  • July 5 2011

In Foster, the Tax Court considered the following: (1) whether an estate was entitled to discount the value of assets in three marital trusts due to the potential for litigation; and (2) whether assets in the marital trusts could be discounted for lack of control over and lack of marketability of the marital trusts’ assets.