Business
[12/03] S&P cuts Dubai company ratings
[12/03] MSU: Michigan population loss cost $4.4 billion
[12/03] Motorola invests in touch-screen software maker
More...

Top Headlines
[12/03] Congress may subpoena White House party crashers
[12/03] New York state lawmakers reject gay marriage bill
[12/03] Harvard Law stops free-tuition public law program
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

[12/03] Starbucks Corp. v. Wolfe's Borough Coffee, Inc.
In a trademark infringement action by Starbucks Corp. regarding a competitor's use of the name "Charbucks," judgment for defendant is affirmed in part where: 1) the district court did not clearly err in finding that the Charbucks Marks were minimally similar to the Starbucks Marks; 2) the Charbucks line of coffee was marketed as a product of very high quality ? as Starbucks also purported its coffee to be ? which was inconsistent with the concept of tarnishment. However, the judgment is vacated in part where the district court needed to conduct further proceedings on the issue of whether Starbucks demonstrated a likelihood of dilution by "blurring" under federal trademark law.
More...

Labor & Employment Law

[12/03] Lopez v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts
In minority police officers' disparate impact race claim under Title VII against a state agency that prepares and administers promotional examinations for local police officers under the state civil service system, their employers, various cities, and the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA), district court's denial of Eleventh Amendment immunity for the state defendants, the state of Massachusetts and a chief human resources officers of the Human Resources Division (HRD) in his official capacity, is reversed where: 1) the state defendants do not qualify as employers as that term is used in Title VII; 2) HRD cannot be deemed plaintiffs' de facto employer as it exercised no control, direct or indirect, over the factors relevant to the common law agency test; and 3) plaintiffs' alternate theories why HRD should be considered their employer under Title VII are rejected.
More...