Foreign Aid for Antitrust Litigants: Impact of the Intel Decision By Richard Liebeskind, Bryan Dunlap and William DeVinney
|
|
- Jerome Carr
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Foreign Aid for Antitrust Litigants: Impact of the Intel Decision By Richard Liebeskind, Bryan Dunlap and William DeVinney U.S. courts are known around the world for allowing ample pre-trial discovery. But can a U.S. court order a U.S. company to produce documents for use in a foreign antitrust investigation, even though that discovery would not be available abroad? The Supreme Court answered this question yes in a recent antitrust opinions, which could have future implications for M&A transactions. The Intel Decision The Court ruled, in Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, 1 that U.S. district courts have discretion to order discovery for use in a foreign antitrust investigation instigated by a competitor or other interested party even if the discovery would not be available in the foreign forum and even if is not sought by the investigating entity. Although the case arose from a European antitrust investigation, its effect is likely to be felt in foreign litigations, investigations and administrative proceedings in other areas of the law. At issue was the scope of 28 U.S.C ( the Statute ), which authorizes a U.S. district court, at the request of a foreign or international tribunal or upon the application of any interested person, to order discovery for use in a proceeding in a foreign or international tribunal, including criminal investigations conducted before formal accusation. The Court interpreted that statute to confer broad authority to order discovery in aid of a wide variety of foreign proceedings. The Court emphasized, however, that district courts may deny such discovery requests as unwarranted. The Dispute Intel arose from a complaint that Advanced Micro Devices ( AMD ) made to the Directorate-General for Competition ( DG-COMP ) of the Commission of the European Communities ( Commission ). AMD claimed that Intel, its main competitor, violated European antitrust law by abusing its dominant market position. 2 DG-COMP undertook a preliminary investigation and requested information and documents from Intel. AMD requested that DG-COMP also ask for documents that Intel had produced in the United States in a private antitrust litigation in Alabama. DG-COMP declined. 1 2 Intel, 124 S. Ct (June 21, 2004). DG-COMP, either acting on its own or in response to a complaint, can initiate a preliminary investigation to determine whether a company has violated the antitrust laws and has the authority to seek information from the accused company and to penalize the company for refusing to provide such information. If DG-COMP undertakes an investigation in response to a complaint, DG-COMP may also provide the complainant the opportunity to support its allegations. If DG-COMP determines that there is sufficient evidence, it recommends that the Commission initiate a complaint. The Commissioner of DG-COMP ( Commissioner ) makes the preliminary determination as to whether a violation has occurred and, if so, it serves a Statement of Objections on the target, to which the target may submit written and oral comments. After reviewing the responses, the Commissioner drafts a preliminary decision, which is then reviewed further within the Commission. The Commissioner may then adopt that decision as a final decision, which becomes enforceable within the European Union. The Commissioner s final decision is subject to review by the Court of First Instance and the European Court of Justice.
2 Despite DG-COMP s evident lack of interest, AMD filed an action in the Northern District of California under the Statute seeking an order to produce the documents. The district court denied AMD s request, observing that the European investigation was still in its initial stages and that the Commission acted more as an administrative agency than a foreign tribunal in that it did not separate the functions of investigation, prosecution, and decision-making. Since the European investigation did not amount to a proceeding in a foreign or international tribunal, the court concluded that it lacked statutory authority to order production. Although the [Intel] case arose from a European antitrust investigation, its effect is likely to be felt in foreign litigations, investigations and administrative proceedings in other areas of the law. The Ninth Circuit reversed, finding that DG-COMP s investigation satisfied the statutory criterion because it was at a minimum, one leading to quasi-judicial proceedings. The Ninth Circuit also decided an issue that had been a subject of conflict among the circuits, finding it irrelevant that AMD was not entitled to obtain the requested documents in the DG-COMP investigation. The Ninth Circuit ordered the district court to consider the merits of AMD s discovery request on remand. Intel petitioned for Supreme Court review, arguing that the Ninth Circuit s ruling would expose U.S. individuals and corporations to countless pre-litigation discovery requests stemming from foreign administrative proceedings, including literally thousands of competition law matters reviewed each year by foreign antitrust agencies. 3 After granting certiorari, the Court held that: AMD was an interested person under the Statute; the investigation was a proceeding in a foreign tribunal for purposes of the Statute; the proceeding need not be imminent to entitle the interested party to discovery, only within reasonable contemplation; and the Statute imposed no threshold requirement that the discovery sought be available in the foreign proceeding. 4 Interested Person Requirement The Court rejected Intel s argument that, to be an interested person, AMD would need to be a litigant or a foreign sovereign, rather than a mere complainant. The Court noted that although AMD was not a party to the European investigation, it had certain rights for example, to submit evidence and to appeal to the European Court of First Instance if the Commission discontinued the investigation or dismissed the complaint. The Court found that, since AMD 3 4 Petition for Writ of Certiorari, 2002 WL , at *6 (Nov. 15, 2002). Justice Ginsburg wrote for the six-judge majority. Justice Scalia concurred in the judgment. Justice Breyer dissented. Justice O Connor did not participate.
3 possessed a reasonable interest in obtaining [judicial] assistance, it qualified as an interested person under the Statute. 5 Proceeding in a Foreign or International Tribunal Intel argued that AMD s complaint was still at the investigative stage and that, since neither DG-COMP nor the Commission has a tribunal s traditional proof-taking function, there was no proceeding before any foreign tribunal. 6 The Court disagreed, finding that the investigation (and any subsequent activity before the Commission, which would act as the initial decision-maker of first instance) amounted to a proceeding before a foreign tribunal. 7 Recognizing the breadth of its reading of the Statute, the Court stressed that district courts also have broad discretion to deny the discovery sought. The Court explained that a district court is authorized to order discovery pursuant to the Statute in quasi-judicial proceedings as well as traditional judicial proceedings. Here, therefore, even though the investigation was still at a preliminary stage, the Statute was satisfied because it was within reasonable contemplation that the investigation would eventually result in a dispositive decision by the Commission subject to review by European courts. 8 Discoverability in Foreign Proceeding The Supreme Court resolved a conflict among appellate courts over whether, to qualify under the Statute, the material sought must be discoverable abroad by the interested person or the foreign tribunal. The First, Fifth and Eleventh Circuits had all held that the material must be available under foreign law. The Second, Third and Ninth Circuits had taken the opposite view. In years to come, Intel may impact international M&A practice at both pre- and post-closing stages. The Supreme Court agreed with the latter position, finding nothing in the text of the statute or the legislative history to suggest that Congress intended to limit district courts authority to order discovery in that fashion. District courts may order discovery under the Statute even if it would not be available in the country where the proceeding is pending, the Court ruled Intel, 124 S. Ct. at The Court rejected the Second Circuit s view that the Statute requires that the proceedings before the foreign tribunal are either in progress or imminent very likely to occur and very soon to occur. Eurompema, S.A. v. Esmerian, Inc., 154 F.3d 24, 29 (2d Cir. 1998). Intel, 124 S. Ct. at Id. 124 S. Ct. at Id. 124 S. Ct. at 2481; In his concurring opinion, Justice Scalia stated that he would have reached the same result by reading the statute in accord with the customary deference to the application of foreign countries laws within their own territories. The lone dissenter, Justice Breyer, maintained that the Court should have limited the scope of the Statute to avoid the expense, delay, and threats thereof associated with discovery and discovery-related proceedings. Justice Breyer would have disallowed discovery requests under the Statute in any situation where both i) a private person seeking discovery would not be entitled to that discovery under foreign law, and ii) the
4 Discretion Vested in District Courts Recognizing the breadth of its reading of the Statute, the Court stressed that district courts also have broad discretion to deny the discovery sought. The Court directed the district court in this case to consider the nature of the tribunal, the character of the proceedings abroad, and the receptivity of the foreign government to the district court s assistance. The Court also recommended that the district court scrutinize the request itself to determine if its scope is appropriate or if, rather, it is an attempt to circumvent foreign proof-gathering restrictions. 10 Courts have been quick to apply the learning of Intel. For example, the Second Circuit recently affirmed a district court s denial of German petitioners request for discovery materials in aid of German judicial proceedings in Schmitz v. Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP. 11 Deutsche Telekom AG ( DT ) was subject to several lawsuits in Germany, a class action in the U.S., and a criminal investigation by the Bonn Public Prosecutor. Twenty-eight of the plaintiffs in the German suits petitioned the Southern District of New York, where the class action was pending, for access to the discovery materials exchanged pursuant to a protective order. The Bonn Prosecutor, who possessed the same documents but refused to produce them to the 28 German plaintiffs, opposed the motion claiming production would jeopardize German sovereign rights. The Second Circuit, relying on Intel, affirmed the district court s denial based on the concerns of the Bonn Prosecutor. Schmitz could be viewed as a victory in fending off a request under the Statute. But, after incurring the time and expense of a year and a half of litigation before a district court and an appellate court, it may not feel much like a victory at all. Although Intel gave some guidance on how to exercise discretion under the Statute, district courts will likely be grappling with this issue for quite some time before a consistent practice develops. In years to come, Intel may impact international M&A practice at both pre- and postclosing stages. Before closing, while a transaction is being scrutinized by antitrust or other regulatory agencies abroad, opponents who are permitted to intervene in those investigations may seek U.S. discovery under the Statute to help convince the foreign agencies to prohibit the deal. Because it takes time to obtain a discovery order and additional time to take the discovery, however, the practical effect of such tactical blocking is likely to be limited. Post-closing, the opponent s strategic goal would be to convince a foreign court or regulator to order the transaction to be rescinded or substantially changed. At either stage, regardless of the merits, there is reason to fear that, given Intel s permissive definition of interested party and foreign proceeding, discovery applications under the Statute may be used to drive up a rival s costs and apply pressure to force a settlement. In Intel, the European Commission s amicus brief argued that companies would be less likely to participate in its antitrust leniency program if their submissions to the Commission discovery would not be available under domestic law in analogous circumstances. Justice Breyer felt that both circumstances were present in Intel. 10 Id. 124 S. Ct. at Schmitz, 376 F.3d 79 (2d Cir. July 20, 2004).
5 could be discoverable in the United States pursuant to the Statute. The U.S. Government did not support the Commission s argument. Instead, the Solicitor General argued that the Court should interpret the Statute expansively, despite the Commission s enforcement concerns, and leave it to the district courts whether or not to grant discovery requests on a case-by-case basis. Conclusion It will probably take some time before courts and litigants work their way through the implications of Intel. Although Intel gave some guidance on how to exercise discretion under the Statute, district courts will likely be grappling with this issue for quite some time before a consistent practice develops. It remains to be seen how broadly district courts will choose to exercise their discretion in future applications for discovery under the Statute. And it remains to be seen how popular such applications will become as a litigant s tactical weapon in foreign disputes. In the short run, at least, Intel has opened the door to a new area of motion practice. It seems likely to engender a number of significant, costly discovery orders, until the courts set out reasonable guidelines for applying the Statute. Richard Liebeskind (rliebeskind@pillsburywinthrop.com) is a partner, and Bryan Dunlap (bdunlap@pillsburywinthrop.com) and William DeVinney (wdevinney@pillsburywinthrop.com) are senior associates with Pillsbury Winthrop LLP. Pillsbury Winthrop represents Intel on various matters unrelated to the AMD litigation.
April 2009 JONES DAY COMMENTARY
April 2009 JONES DAY COMMENTARY Developments in U.S. Law Regarding a More Liberal Approach to Discovery Requests Made by Foreign Litigants Under 28 U.S.C. 1782 In these times of global economic turmoil,
More informationCase 1:15-mc P1 Document 21 Filed 06/22/15 Page 1 of 9
Case 1:15-mc-00081-P1 Document 21 Filed 06/22/15 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK IN RE APPLICATION OF REPUBLIC OF KAZAKHSTAN FOR AN ORDER DIRECTING DISCOVERY FROM
More information(Argued: January 25, 2012 Decided: March 6, 2012) Petitioner-Appellant, Respondent-Appellee.
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1-1-cv Brandi-Dohrn v. IKB Deutsche Industriebank UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS For the Second Circuit August Term, 0 (Argued: January, 01 Decided: March, 01) Docket No. -1-cv ANSELM
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA MEMORANDUM OPINION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA IN RE APPLICATION OF CARATUBE INTERNATIONAL OIL COMPANY, LLP Misc. Action No. 10-0285 (JDB) MEMORANDUM OPINION Caratube International Oil Company,
More informationThe Supreme Court Decision in Empagran
The Supreme Court Decision On June 14, 2004, the United States Supreme Court issued its much anticipated opinion in Hoffmann-La Roche, Ltd. v. Empagran S.A, 2004 WL 1300131 (2004). This closely watched
More informationThe Opportunities and Challenges of Using U.S. Discovery in Aid of Foreign and International Proceedings
Using U.S. Discovery in Aid of Foreign and International Proceedings The Opportunities and Challenges of Using U.S. Discovery in Aid of Foreign and International Proceedings Harout Jack Samra DLA Piper
More informationIn the Supreme Court of the United States
No. 15-290 In the Supreme Court of the United States UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, PETITIONER v. HAWKES CO., INC., ET AL. ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
More informationCase 4:17-mc DMR Document 4 Filed 08/04/17 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case :-mc-000-dmr Document Filed 0/0/ Page of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 0 0 IN RE EX PARTE APPLICATION OF ANZ COMMODITY TRADING PTY LTD Case No. -mc-000-dmr ORDER GRANTING
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit No. 14-3434 Andover Healthcare, Inc., lllllllllllllllllllllpetitioner - Appellant, v. 3M Company, lllllllllllllllllllllrespondent - Appellee. Appeal
More informationHeraeus Kulzer GmbH v. Esschem Inc
2010 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 7-28-2010 Heraeus Kulzer GmbH v. Esschem Inc Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 09-3982 Follow
More informationPace International Law Review
Pace International Law Review Volume 17 Issue 2 Fall 2005 Article 11 September 2005 Recent Interpretation of 28 U.S.C. 1782(A) by the Supreme Court in Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.: The Effects
More informationLAWRENCE v. FLORIDA: APPLICATIONS FOR POST- CONVICTION RELIEF ARE PENDING UNDER THE AEDPA ONLY UNTIL FINAL JUDGMENT IN STATE COURT
LAWRENCE v. FLORIDA: APPLICATIONS FOR POST- CONVICTION RELIEF ARE PENDING UNDER THE AEDPA ONLY UNTIL FINAL JUDGMENT IN STATE COURT ELIZABETH RICHARDSON-ROYER* I. INTRODUCTION On February 20, 2007, the
More informationClient Alert. Background on Discovery Requests under Section 1782
Number 1383 August 13, 2012 Client Alert Latham & Watkins Litigation Department Eleventh Circuit Holds That Parties to Private International Commercial Arbitral Tribunals May Seek Discovery Assistance
More informationUnited States Supreme Court Considering A California Appellate Court Opinion Invalidating A Class Action Arbitration Waiver
United States Supreme Court Considering A California Appellate Court Opinion Invalidating A Class Action Arbitration Waiver By: Roland C. Goss August 31, 2015 On October 6, 2015, the second day of this
More informationThe U.S. Supreme Court s Expansion of 28 U.S.C. 1782: Is the Door Now Open to Discovery in Aid of Foreign Arbitration Proceedings?
The U.S. Supreme Court s Expansion of 28 U.S.C. 1782: Is the Door Now Open to Discovery in Aid of Foreign Arbitration Proceedings? Joshua D. Rievman E. Anne Musella Hoguet Newman Regal & Kenney, LLP 10
More informationSupreme Court Holds that SEC Administrative Law Judges Are Unconstitutionally Appointed
Supreme Court Holds that SEC Administrative Law Judges Are Unconstitutionally Appointed June 26, 2018 On June 21, 2018, the Supreme Court ruled in Lucia v. SEC 1 that Securities and Exchange Commission
More informationS P I E G E L & M C D I A R M I D LLP E Y E S T R E E T, N W S U I T E W A S H I N G T O N, D C
MEMORANDUM S P I E G E L & M C D I A R M I D LLP 1 8 7 5 E Y E S T R E E T, N W S U I T E 7 0 0 W A S H I N G T O N, D C 2 0 0 0 6 T E L E P H O N E 2 0 2. 879. 4000 F A C S I M I L E 2 0 2. 393. 2866
More informationAttorneys for Respondent SOUTHERN COPPER CORPORATION IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Case :-mc-000-dlr Document Filed 0// Page of 0 MCGUIREWOODS LLP GREGORY EVANS (CA SBN ) Pro Hac Vice KEOLA R. WHITTAKER (CA SBN 00) Pro Hac Vice Wells Fargo Center South Tower South Grand Avenue Suite
More informationSupreme Court to Address Removal of State Parens Patriae Actions to Federal Courts Under CAFA
theantitrustsource w w w. a n t i t r u s t s o u r c e. c o m A u g u s t 2 0 1 3 1 Supreme Court to Address Removal of State Parens Patriae Actions to Federal Courts Under CAFA Blake L. Harrop S States
More informationIN A JUSTICE DEPARTMENT SHUTDOWN, FUNDED AGENCIES CAN STILL LITIGATE
IN A JUSTICE DEPARTMENT SHUTDOWN, FUNDED AGENCIES CAN STILL LITIGATE KEITH BRADLEY* A large portion of the federal government was shut down from December 22, 2018 through January 26, 2019, due to a lapse
More information~n ~e ~upreme g;ourt o[ t~ i~init ~ ~tat~
No. 08-881 ~:~LED / APR 152009 J / OFFICE 3F TI.~: ~ c lk J ~n ~e ~upreme g;ourt o[ t~ i~init ~ ~tat~ MARTIN MARCEAU, ET AL., PETITIONERS V. BLACKFEET HOUSING AUTHORITY, ET AL. ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF
More informationIn The Supreme Court of the United States
No. 17-370 In The Supreme Court of the United States JAMEKA K. EVANS, v. Petitioner, GEORGIA REGIONAL HOSPITAL, et al., Respondents. On Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari To The United States Court Of Appeals
More informationDispute Resolution International Vol 1 No 1 pp June 2007
The Journal of the Dispute Resolution Section of the International Bar Association Dispute Resolution International Vol 1 No 1 pp 1-127 June 2007 Class Arbitration in the United States: What Foreign Counsel
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
No. 05-85 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States POWEREX CORP., Petitioner, v. RELIANT ENERGY SERVICES, INC., ET AL., Respondents. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of
More informationPATENT LAW. SAS Institute, Inc. v. Joseph Matal, Interim Director, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, and ComplementSoft, LLC Docket No.
PATENT LAW Is the Federal Circuit s Adoption of a Partial-Final-Written-Decision Regime Consistent with the Statutory Text and Intent of the U.S.C. Sections 314 and 318? CASE AT A GLANCE The Court will
More informationDistrict Attorney's Office v. Osborne, 129 S.Ct (2009). Dorothea Thompson' I. Summary
Thompson: Post-Conviction Access to a State's Forensic DNA Evidence 6:2 Tennessee Journal of Law and Policy 307 STUDENT CASE COMMENTARY POST-CONVICTION ACCESS TO A STATE'S FORENSIC DNA EVIDENCE FOR PROBATIVE
More informationUnited States District Court
Case:-mc-00-JW Document Filed0/0/ Page of IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 0 In re Ex Parte Application of Apple Inc., Apple Retail Germany
More informationDoes a Civil Protective Order Protect a Company s Foreign Based Documents from Being Produced in a Related Criminal Investigation?
Does a Civil Protective Order Protect a Company s Foreign Based Documents from Being Produced in a Related Criminal Investigation? Contributed by Thomas P. O Brien and Daniel Prince, Paul Hastings LLP
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No D.C. Docket No. CV T
[PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 05-11556 D.C. Docket No. CV-05-00530-T THERESA MARIE SCHINDLER SCHIAVO, incapacitated ex rel, Robert Schindler and Mary Schindler,
More informationThe Federal Courts. Chapter 16
The Federal Courts Chapter 16 3 HISTORICAL ERAS OF INFLUENCE 1787-1865 Political Nation building (legitimacy of govt.) Slavery 1865-1937 Economic Govt. roll in economy Great Depression 1937-Present Ideological
More informationCase 3:14-cv AET-DEA Document 9 Filed 10/17/14 Page 1 of 7 PageID: 117 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
Case 314-cv-05655-AET-DEA Document 9 Filed 10/17/14 Page 1 of 7 PageID 117 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY In Re Application of OWL SHIPPING, LLC & ORIOLE Civil Action No. 14-5655 (AET)(DEA)
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT AND PORT JEFFERSON STEAMBOAT COMPANY, ET AL., Plaintiffs, CASE NO. 3:03 CV 599 (CFD) - against - BRIDGEPORT PORT AUTHORITY, July 13, 2010
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
17 424 cv Kiobel v. Cravath, Swain & Moore, LLP. United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit AUGUST TERM 2017 No. 17 424 cv ESTHER KIOBEL, BY HER ATTORNEY IN FACT CHANNA SAMKALDEN, Petitioner
More informationTown Of Chester: An Answer On Class-Member Standing?
Portfolio Media. Inc. 111 West 19 th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10011 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Town Of Chester: An Answer On Class-Member
More informationSupreme Court Bars State Common Law Claims Challenging Medical Devices with FDA Pre-Market Approval
report from washi ngton Supreme Court Bars State Common Law Claims Challenging Medical Devices with FDA Pre-Market Approval March 6, 2008 To view THE SUPREME COURT S DECISION IN riegel V. medtronic, Inc.
More informationChapter 18: The Federal Court System Section 1
Chapter 18: The Federal Court System Section 1 Origins of the Judiciary The Constitution created the Supreme Court. Article III gives Congress the power to create the rest of the federal court system,
More informationIn the Supreme Court of the United States
No. 02-572 In the Supreme Court of the United States INTEL CORPORATION, v. ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC., Petitioner, Respondent. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Cite as: 554 U. S. (2008) 1 Per Curiam SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Nos. 06 984 (08A98), 08 5573 (08A99), and 08 5574 (08A99) 06 984 (08A98) v. ON APPLICATION TO RECALL AND STAY MANDATE AND FOR STAY
More informationIn the Supreme Court of the United States
No. 16-658 In the Supreme Court of the United States CHARMAINE HAMER, PETITIONER, v. NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSING SERVICES OF CHICAGO & FANNIE MAE, RESPONDENTS ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED
More informationBuckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. Cardegna*
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. Cardegna* I. INTRODUCTION In a decision that lends further credence to the old adage that consumers should always beware of the small print, the United
More informationNo IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES CASSANDRA ANNE KASOWSKI, PETITIONER UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
No. 16-9649 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES CASSANDRA ANNE KASOWSKI, PETITIONER v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
More informationThe Supreme Court Appears Likely to Place the Burden of Proof in Declaratory-Judgment Actions on the Patentees
The Supreme Court Appears Likely to Place the Burden of Proof in Declaratory-Judgment Actions on the Patentees BY ROBERT M. MASTERS & IGOR V. TIMOFEYEV November 2013 On November 5, the U.S. Supreme Court
More informationJurisdiction. Appointed by the President with the Advice and Consent of the Senate according to Article II, Section 2
The Judicial Branch Jurisdiction Federal Courts Article III, Section 1 vests judicial power in the Supreme Court and other inferior courts created by Congress Judges serve during good Behavior Appointed
More informationNo REPLY BRIEF FOR THE PETITIONER
No. 06-1431 FILED JUL 2? ~ CBOCS WEST, INC., Petitioner, Vo HEDRICK G. HUMPHRIES, Respondent. On Petition for a Writ of Cera orari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit REPLY BRIEF
More informationU.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit January 25, 2006 Related Index Numbers. Appeal from the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Ohio
Jacob WINKELMAN, a minor, by and through his parents and legal guardians, Jeff and Sandee WINKELMAN, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. PARMA CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant-Appelle U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth
More informationNo In The. MOHAMED ALI SAMANTAR, Petitioner, v.
No. 12-1078 In The MOHAMED ALI SAMANTAR, Petitioner, v. BASHE ABDI YOUSUF, ET AL. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF FOR
More informationPetitioner, - v - Civ. No. 1:08-CV-269 (LEK/RFT) SI GROUP INC., Respondent.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK In the Matter of the Application of MINATEC FINANCE S.À.R.L., Petitioner, - v - Civ. No. 1:08-CV-269 (LEK/RFT) SI GROUP INC., Respondent. APPEARANCES:
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Case: 07-56424 06/08/2009 Page: 1 of 7 DktEntry: 6949062 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ROBERT M. NELSON, et al. Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. No. 07-56424 NATIONAL AERONAUTICS
More informationInsight. NLRB Continues Attack on Class and Collective Action Waivers FEBRUARY 22, 2016 IN-DEPTH DISCUSSION. NLRB Decisions
IN-DEPTH DISCUSSION FEBRUARY 22, 2016 NLRB Continues Attack on Class and Collective Action Waivers BY WILLIAM EMANUEL, MISSY PARRY, HENRY LEDERMAN, AND MICHAEL LOTITO There seems to be no end in sight
More informationCase 1:17-mc PKC Document 59 Filed 10/30/17 Page 1 of 19
Case 1:17-mc-00172-PKC Document 59 Filed 10/30/17 Page 1 of 19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -----------------------------------------------------------x IN RE APPLICATION
More informationNo IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES LUMMI NATION, ET AL., PETITIONERS SAMISH INDIAN TRIBE, ET AL.
No. 05-445 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES LUMMI NATION, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. SAMISH INDIAN TRIBE, ET AL. ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
More informationIn the Supreme Court of the United States
No. 13-1333 In the Supreme Court of the United States ANDRE LEE COLEMAN, AKA ANDRE LEE COLEMAN-BEY, PETITIONER v. TODD TOLLEFSON, ET AL. ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF
More informationNo IN THE. SAMICA ENTERPRISES, LLC, et al., Petitioners, v. MAIL BOXES ETC., INC., et al., Respondents.
No. 11-1322 IN THE SAMICA ENTERPRISES, LLC, et al., Petitioners, v. MAIL BOXES ETC., INC., et al., Respondents. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
More informationCase: , 01/02/2018, ID: , DktEntry: 43-1, Page 1 of 7 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Case: 16-55470, 01/02/2018, ID: 10708808, DktEntry: 43-1, Page 1 of 7 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FILED JAN 02 2018 (1 of 14) MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
No. 11-649 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States RIO TINTO PLC AND RIO TINTO LIMITED, Petitioners, v. ALEXIS HOLYWEEK SAREI, ET AL., Respondents. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United
More informationCase 1:13-mc P1 Document 28 Filed 11/08/13 Page 1 of 20. Petitioner, On March 27, 2013, petitioner Kreke Immobilien KG ( Kreke )
Case 1:13-mc-00110-P1 Document 28 Filed 11/08/13 Page 1 of 20 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ----------------------------------------X In re Application of: KREKE IMMOBILIEN
More informationIn 2008, the en banc Fifth Circuit granted mandamus relief in the
News for the Bar Spring 2016 THE LITIGATION SECTION of the State Bar of Texas Mandamus in the Fifth Circuit: Life After In re: Vollkswagen by David S. Coale In 2008, the en banc Fifth Circuit granted mandamus
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No
Case: 18-90010 Date Filed: 04/18/2018 Page: 1 of 7 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 18-90010 WALTER LEROY MOODY, JR., versus Petitioner, U.S. ATTORNEY
More informationCHAPTER THIRTEEN DECIDING THE MERITS OF THE CLAIM
CHAPTER THIRTEEN DECIDING THE MERITS OF THE CLAIM This chapter discusses the various components of the AEDPA deference statute, including... The meaning of the term merits adjudication, The clearly established
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
No. 12-744 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING, INC., formerly known as ER Solutions, Inc., Petitioner, v. ANTHONY W. ZINNI, Respondent. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari
More informationNo ================================================================
No. 16-26 ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- --------------------------------- BULK JULIANA LTD.
More informationSupreme Court Limits Enhanced Attorneys Fees Under Federal Fee-Shifting Laws to
Supreme Court Limits Enhanced Attorneys Fees Under Federal Fee-Shifting Laws to Extraordinary Circumstances A partially divided U.S. Supreme Court agreed that lower courts in federal civil rights and related
More informationJournal of Dispute Resolution
Journal of Dispute Resolution Volume 1997 Issue 1 Article 7 1997 Arbitrator or Private Investigator: Should the Arbitrator's Duty to Disclose Include a Duty to Investigate - Abudullah E. Al-Harbi v. Citibank,
More informationIn The Supreme Court of the United States
No. 12-651 ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- --------------------------------- AMY AND VICKY,
More informationPending before this Court is Petitioner, Mesa Power Group, LLC's ("Mesa Power") ex
Case 2:11-mc-00280-ES Document 4 Filed 11120/12 Page 1 of 16 PagelD: 219 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY NOT FOR PUBLICATION In Re Application of MESA POWER GROUP, LLC Applicant
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ex rel. * GLOBE COMPOSITE SOLUTIONS, LTD., * * Plaintiff, * * v. * * Civil Action No. 05-10004-JLT SOLAR CONSTRUCTION, INC.
More informationWhen is a ruling truly final?
When is a ruling truly final? When is a ruling truly final? Ryan B. McCrum at Jones Day considers the Fresenius v Baxter ruling and its potential impact on patent litigation in the US. In a case that could
More information1. Which Article of the Constitution created the federal judiciary?
9 The Judiciary Multiple-Choice Questions 1. Which Article of the Constitution created the federal judiciary? a. Article III b. Article II c. Article VI d. Article I e. Article IX 2. According to Article
More informationPatent Litigation With Non-Practicing Entities: Strategies, Trends and
Patent Litigation With Non-Practicing Entities: Strategies, Trends and Techniques ALFRED R. FABRICANT 20 th Annual Fordham Intellectual Property Conference April 12, 2012 2011 Winston & Strawn LLP Leveling
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
No. 12-840 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States GERALD L. WERTH, Petitioner, v. CINDI CURTIN, WARDEN, Respondent. On Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari To The United States Court Of Appeals For The
More informationNo IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-3452 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, Respondent-Appellant. Appeal From
More informationCase 1:17-mc DAB Document 28 Filed 06/22/17 Page 1 of 20
Case 1:17-mc-00105-DAB Document 28 Filed 06/22/17 Page 1 of 20 Case 1:17-mc-00105-DAB Document 28 Filed 06/22/17 Page 2 of 20 but also DENIES Jones Day s Motion to Dismiss in its entirety. Applicants may
More informationCase 1:13-cv JTC Document 25 Filed 05/28/14 Page 1 of 6. Plaintiffs, Defendant.
Case 1:13-cv-00338-JTC Document 25 Filed 05/28/14 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK MARIO PASSERO and CAROL PASSERO, Plaintiffs, -vs- 13-CV-338C DIVERSIFIED CONSULTANTS,
More informationIf It Looks Like a Duck... : Private International Arbitral Bodies Are Adjudicatory Tribunals Under 28 U.S.C. 1782(a)
Washington and Lee Law Review Volume 67 Issue 4 Article 11 9-1-2010 If It Looks Like a Duck... : Private International Arbitral Bodies Are Adjudicatory Tribunals Under 28 U.S.C. 1782(a) Brandon Hasbrouck
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Cite as: U. S. (1998) 1 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions,
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT. v. Case No. 5D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JERRY L. DEMINGS, ORANGE COUNTY SHERIFF, ET AL., Petitioner, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION
More informationAlert Memo. I. Background
Alert Memo NEW YORK JUNE 25, 2010 U.S. Supreme Court Limits Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act to Security Transactions Made on Domestic Exchanges or in the United States On June 24, 2010, the
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
No. 15-457 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States MICROSOFT CORPORATION, v. SETH BAKER, ET AL., Petitioner, Respondents. On Petition For a Writ of Certiorari To the United States Court of Appeals For
More informationCase 1:16-mc FDS Document 37 Filed 12/09/16 Page 1 of 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
Case 1:16-mc-91278-FDS Document 37 Filed 12/09/16 Page 1 of 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS ) In re Application of ) GEORGE W. SCHLICH ) Civil Action No. for Order to Take Discovery
More informationCORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
1 QUESTION PRESENTED Whether the Circuit Court's well-reasoned decision to examine its own subject-matter jurisdiction conflicts with the discretionary authority to bypass its jurisdictional inquiry in
More informationUnit V: Institutions The Federal Courts
Unit V: Institutions The Federal Courts Introduction to Federal Courts Categories of law Statutory law Laws created by legislation; statutes Common law Accumulation of court precedents Criminal law Government
More informationNO: INTHE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES OCTOBER TERM, 2014 DANAE. TUOMI, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
NO: 15-5756 INTHE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES OCTOBER TERM, 2014 DANAE. TUOMI, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court
More informationTABLE OF CONTENTS Page QUESTION PRESENTED... 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES INTRODUCTION... 1 STATEMENT OF THE CASE... 2 A.
1 QUESTION PRESENTED Did the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit err in concluding that the State of West Virginia's enforcement action was brought under a West Virginia statute regulating the sale
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
No. 12-651 ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- --------------------------------- AMY AND VICKY,
More informationChicken or Egg: Applying the Age- Old Question to Class Waivers in Employee Arbitration Agreements
Chicken or Egg: Applying the Age- Old Question to Class Waivers in Employee Arbitration Agreements By Bonnie Burke, Lawrence & Bundy LLC and Christina Tellado, Reed Smith LLP Companies with employees across
More informationAdvisory. Seventh Circuit Rejects Bond Indenture and Its Waiver of Tribal Sovereign Immunity, But Allows Leave to Amend for Equitable Claims
Advisory Insolvency & Restructuring Finance October 31, 2011 Seventh Circuit Rejects Bond Indenture and Its Waiver of Tribal Sovereign Immunity, But Allows Leave to Amend for Equitable Claims by Blaine
More informationPTAB Trial Proceedings and Parallel Litigation: Impact, Strategy & Consequences
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP PTAB Trial Proceedings and Parallel Litigation: Impact, Strategy & Consequences 2015 National CLE Conference Friday, January 9, 2015 Presented by Denise
More informationNo toe ~upreme (~ourt of toe ~tnite~ ~i, tate~ PLACER DOME, INC. AND BARRICK GOLD CORPORATION,
Supreme Court, U.S. - FILED No. 09-944 SEP 3-2010 OFFICE OF THE CLERK toe ~upreme (~ourt of toe ~tnite~ ~i, tate~ PLACER DOME, INC. AND BARRICK GOLD CORPORATION, Petitioners, Vo PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT OF
More information7) For a case to be heard in the Supreme Court, a minimum of how many judges must vote to hear the case? A) none B) one C) nine D) five E) four
Exam Name MULTIPLE CHOICE. Choose the one alternative that best completes the statement or answers the question. 1) Common law is. A) laws passed by legislatures B) the requirement that plaintiffs have
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Argued February 16, 2007 Decided April 6, 2007 No. 06-5324 MOHAMMAD MUNAF AND MAISOON MOHAMMED, AS NEXT FRIEND OF MOHAMMAD MUNAF, APPELLANTS
More informationThe NYIPLA Report: Recent Developments in Patent Law at the U.S. Supreme Court: OIL STATES, SAS INSTITUTE, and WESTERNGECO
The NYIPLA Report: Recent Developments in Patent Law at the U.S. Supreme Court: OIL STATES, SAS INSTITUTE, and WESTERNGECO Author(s): Charles R. Macedo, Jung S. Hahm, David Goldberg, Christopher Lisiewski
More informationROGERS v. UNITED STATES. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the eleventh circuit
252 OCTOBER TERM, 1997 Syllabus ROGERS v. UNITED STATES certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the eleventh circuit No. 96 1279. Argued November 5, 1997 Decided January 14, 1998 Petitioner
More informationIn the Supreme Court of the United States
No. 15-1054 In the Supreme Court of the United States CURTIS SCOTT, PETITIONER v. ROBERT A. MCDONALD, SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
More informationHow Bilski Impacts Your Patent Prosecution and Litigation Strategies. MIP Inaugural China-International IP Forum June 30, 2010, Beijing
How Bilski Impacts Your Patent Prosecution and Litigation Strategies MIP Inaugural China-International IP Forum June 30, 2010, Beijing Presenters Esther H. Lim Managing Partner, Shanghai Office Finnegan,
More informationCase: , 03/23/2016, ID: , DktEntry: 55-1, Page 1 of 6 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Case: 14-15420, 03/23/2016, ID: 9911898, DktEntry: 55-1, Page 1 of 6 FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 23 2016 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
More informationIn the Supreme Court of the United States
No. 17-155 In the Supreme Court of the United States ERIK LINDSEY HUGHES, PETITIONER v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH
More informationNo UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. VALERIE SOTO, as Guardian Ad Litem of Y.D., a minor, Plaintiff-Appellant,
Case: 17-16705, 11/22/2017, ID: 10665607, DktEntry: 15, Page 1 of 20 No. 17-16705 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT VALERIE SOTO, as Guardian Ad Litem of Y.D., a minor, Plaintiff-Appellant,
More informationORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN NO ORAL ARGUMENT HELD SEPTEMBER 27, 2016 IN NO
USCA Case #17-1014 Document #1670187 Filed: 04/07/2017 Page 1 of 11 ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN NO. 17-1014 ORAL ARGUMENT HELD SEPTEMBER 27, 2016 IN NO. 15-1363 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
No. 11-9307 ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- --------------------------------- ARMARCION D. HENDERSON,
More informationARBITRATING INSURANCE DISPUTES IN THE SECOND CIRCUIT: "CHOICE OF LAW" PROVISIONS ROLE IN FEDERAL ARBITRATION ACT PREEMPTION OF STATE ARBITRATION LAWS
ARBITRATING INSURANCE DISPUTES IN THE SECOND CIRCUIT: "CHOICE OF LAW" PROVISIONS ROLE IN FEDERAL ARBITRATION ACT PREEMPTION OF STATE ARBITRATION LAWS I. INTRODUCTION MELICENT B. THOMPSON, Esq. 1 Partner
More information