BY LISA DOUGAN In a narrow holding in Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Bailey, the United States Supreme Court held that direct actions asserted by plaintiffs against the insurers of asbestos manufacturers based on the alleged wrongdoing of the insurer were barred based on the reorganization plan and injunction order approved […]
Archive for May, 2012
PRICE-SQUEEZE CLAIMS ARE NO LONGER COGNIZABLE PURSUANT TO § 2 OF THE SHERMAN ACT ABSENT AN ANTITRUST DUTY TO DEAL AT THE WHOLESALE LEVEL OR PREDATORY PRICING AT THE RETAIL LEVEL: PACIFIC BELL TELEPHONE CO. V. LINKLINE COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
BY CHRISTIAN EVANS Since 1945, courts have struggled to develop a precise formula in which price-squeeze claims can be settled under antitrust law. This struggle has resulted in a variety of inconsistent rulings throughout the court of appeals. In 2009, the Supreme Court attempted to remedy this dilemma by separating […]
A COLLECTIVE-BARGAINING AGREEMENT, WHICH CLEARLY AND UNMISTAKABLY REQUIRES UNION MEMBERS TO ARBITRATE ADEA CLAIMS, IS ENFORCEABLE AS A MATTER OF FEDERAL LAW: 14 PENN PLAZA LLC V. PYETT.
BY BRIAN LUCOT In 14 Penn Plaza v. Pyett, the United States Supreme Court concluded that a collective-bargaining agreement that expressly states that Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”) claims are subject to arbitration is enforceable as a matter of federal law. This note will give a detailed summary as […]
STATE ENFORCEMENT OF STATE FAIR-LENDING LAWS AGAINST NATIONAL BANKS IS NOT AN EXERCISE OF VISITORIAL POWERS RESERVED EXCLUSIVELY TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BY THE NATIONAL BANK ACT: CUOMO V. CLEARING HOUSE ASSOCIATION, L.L.C.
BY JAMES THORNBURG Do states have the power to enforce their own fair-lending laws against national banks? This was the question presented to the Supreme Court of the United States in Cuomo v. Clearing House Ass’n, L.L.C. In a majority opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Court answered in the […]
VISITORIAL POWERS AND THE GENERAL POWER TO ENFORCE THE LAW: ANDREW M. CUOMO, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW YORK V. THE CLEARING HOUSE ASSOCIATION, L.L.C.
BY ALEXANDRA KUTCHINS The Supreme Court of the United States vacated an injunction against the attorney general of New York insofar as it prohibited him from bringing a judicial enforcement action to enforce compliance with New York fair-lending law because the vesting of visitorial powers in the Comptroller of the […]
THE SUPREME COURT’S REVIEW OF JONES V. HARRIS ASSOCIATES AND § 36(b) CLAIMS UNDER THE INVESTMENT COMPANY ACT OF 1940—A PROSPECTIVE AND ANALYTICAL VIEW
BY JAMES F. KOEHLER, ESQ. AND P. WESLEY LAMBERT, ESQ. Since its enactment, no plaintiff has ever prevailed in a court case challenging the size of an advisory fee charged by a mutual fund adviser under § 36(b) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “ICA”). Continue Reading>
