Business
[11/25] Sales of new homes forecast to rise 2 percent
[11/25] GM says main plant in Germany crucial to its plans
[11/25] Credit Suisse agrees to $79M Colorado settlement
More...

Top Headlines
[11/25] Obama expects support for more Afghanistan troops
[11/25] Feds seek rehearing of baseball drug list ruling
[11/25] Judge: White Conn. firefighters must be promoted
More...

Government Contracts

[11/25] SEC v. DiBella
In an action by the SEC seeking civil penalties for securities fraud, judgment for plaintiff is affirmed where: 1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that, at the time of the transaction at issue, the government official whose fraud defendants allegedly abetted was a fiduciary with respect to the transaction; 2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the fee paid to one defendant as part of that transaction was material; and 3) there was substantial evidence that defendant knowingly aided and abetted the official in violating section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5.
More...

Intellectual Property

[11/24] Standard Microsystems Corp. v. Winbond Elec. Corp.
In plaintiff's suit against a Taiwanese corporation and an Israeli corporation claiming that they misappropriated the design of a microchip used in manufacturing personal computers, trial court's entry of default judgment against defendants is reversed where: 1) undisputed facts plainly establish defendants' attorney's fault necessary to trigger a right to mandatory relief; 2) plaintiff's argument that relief was barred by Code of Civ. Proc. section 1008, which restricts motions for reconsideration and renewals of previously denied motions, is rejected; and 3) to the extent a literal application of section 1008 might conflict with the provisions of section 473(b), the latter must prevail.
More...

Labor & Employment Law

[11/25] Medina v. Metro. Life Ins. Co.
In plaintiff's ERISA suit against defendant alleging that it used an arbitrary and capricious procedure in terminating his short-term disability benefits and refusing to grant him long-term disability benefits, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) defendant did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff's claim for short-term disability benefits; 2) district court did not err in dismissing plaintiff's claim for long-term disability benefits as he had not exhausted his administrative remedies; 3) plaintiff's claim that defendant is liable for sanctions is rejected; and 4) district court did not err in not awarding plaintiff attorney's fees as he did not prevail on any of his substantive claims.
More...