Archive | Case Analysis RSS feed for this section

Credit Suisse pays $885 Million to Settle U.S. Mortgage Case

Sasha Boshart Suisse Group AG has become the latest bank to settle with the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) over allegations it misrepresented mortgage-backed securities sold before the financial crisis, hopefully setting the stage for future reform.1 . It also happens to be one of about a dozen Swiss banks under investigation by U.S. authorities […]

Comments { 0 }

Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank International

Andrew Strauss On March 31, 2014, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank International.1 The case will seek to clarify if an analytical method that is implemented by a computer or a link on the Internet is eligible for monopoly protection.2 The case began in 2007, when […]

Comments { 0 }

Standing Up for Static Control: The Supreme Court Defines a New Test for Standing Under the Lanham Act in Lexmark International, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc.

Kristin Lockhart In Lexmark International, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc.,1 ] the Supreme Court resolved the standard for determining who could sue for false advertising or false association under the Lanham Act.2 In a unanimous opinion written by Justice Scalia, the Court surprisingly rejected the three disparate tests for standing adopted by the circuits […]

Comments { 0 }

Sandifer et al. v. U.S. Steel Corp.

Dorian Bakogiannis On January 27, the Supreme Court decided Sandifer v. U.S. Steel Corp.,1 in which the Court considered whether the act of putting on and taking off protective clothing should be equivalent to other types of clothes changing addressed by section §203(o) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).2 The Court held unanimously that […]

Comments { 0 }

When Corporate Fraud Kills: DOJ Settles with Toyota for Record $1.2 Billion, Sets Stage for GM Probe

Jason Bailey In United States v. Toyota Motor Corp., the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) filed a Deferred Prosecution Agreement (“Agreement”) on March 19, ending a four-year investigation of Toyota with a settlement totaling $1.2 billion, the largest financial penalty against an automotive company in U.S. history.1 Per the Agreement, DOJ will defer the prosecution […]

Comments { 0 }

Alleged LIBOR Manipulation: Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. v. Bank of America Corp.

Brandon Kinnard The U.S. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), acting as a receiver for a handful of failed banks, filed a complaint on Friday, March 14th, against some of the largest banks in the world for allegedly manipulating the London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR).1 Among those being sued are some of the most powerful international […]

Comments { 0 }

Garcia v. Google, Inc.

Caile Morris On February 26, 2014, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit rendered a decision under the Copyright Act1 that has broad and potentially damaging implications for how actor’s copyright interests are determined in films of all sizes, from low-budget amateur to blockbuster. In Garcia v. Google, Inc.,2 the Court ruled […]

Comments { 0 }

The Business of Human Rights: Upholding the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s Conflict Minerals Rules

Vesna Harasic Recently, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) promulgated a series of rules, mandated by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (“Dodd-Frank”)1, which seek to dissuade companies from engaging in trade that promotes human right abuses.2 Section 1502 of Dodd-Frank requires companies to publicly disclose their use of “conflict minerals,” […]

Comments { 0 }

JPMorgan’s Legal Woes Continue

Christopher J. Frisina In October 2013, I wrote about JP Morgan Chase Bank NA’s (“JPMorgan”) $100 million settlement with the U.S. Commodities and Future Trading Commission (“CFTC”).  In that article, I noted that even with over $1 billion in settlements, JPMorgan’s legal woes were not over.[1]  Despite agreeing to pay nearly $20 billion in settlements […]

Comments { 0 }

Martinez v. E.I. Dupont De Nemours & Co. Inc.

Roberto Alba-Bustamante In Martinez v. E.I. duPont de Nemours & Co., Inc.,[1] the Supreme Court of Delaware affirmed a previous decision by the Superior Court dismissing a tort claim against DuPont by plaintiffs who had suffered asbestos-related injuries while working for an Argentine subsidiary of DuPont.[2]  The Superior Court dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint on forum […]

Comments { 0 }