This case arose after the court entered a $25 million judgment in favor of the FDIC against accounting firm Grant Thornton for claims related to the failure of First National Bank of Keystone, involving securitizations and professional services. The remaining issue was whether and how much settlement credit Grant Thornton should receive for the FDIC's prior settlement with the bank's law firm, Kutak Rock. The court granted Grant Thornton's motion for a settlement credit after making supplemental findings of fact and conclusions of law, including that the settlement was made in good faith and applying principles of West Virginia law on damages and contribution to determine the credit amount based on losses from specific securitizations.
This case involved a breach of contract claim by Ralph Repass against Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company over the denial of lifetime total disability benefits under a policy purchased in 1988. The policy required the insured to be totally disabled—meaning unable to perform the principal duties of his occupation—by December 28, 2000, and to remain so through December 28, 2005, in order to qualify for lifetime benefits after the initial coverage period ended. Repass, who had received partial disability benefits after a back injury, argued he met the criteria, but the court found the policy language unambiguous and determined that he could still perform most of the principal duties of his occupation as president and CEO based on the evidence. The court granted summary judgment to Northwestern, concluding there was no genuine issue of material fact and the insurer had not breached the contract by denying the lifetime benefits.
This case is a shareholder derivative action brought by plaintiff Vernon Mercier on behalf of Massey Energy Company against its directors and officers, alleging breaches of fiduciary duty for failing to oversee compliance with environmental and mine safety laws. The suit followed a parallel state court action that resulted in a settlement approved by the Kanawha County Circuit Court, which included broad releases covering the defendants here. After the plaintiff declined to appeal the state judgment, he filed an amended complaint in federal court claiming the state settlement lacked preclusive effect due to inadequate notice. The court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss both the original and amended complaints, holding that the state court settlement barred the claims and that the plaintiff had not satisfied the requirements for maintaining a derivative action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.1 and Delaware law.
This case involved a former employee's claim for short-term disability benefits under an employer-sponsored plan administered by MetLife, following a recurrence of his congestive heart failure and cardiomyopathy after he had returned to work. The plan defined disability as a condition preventing performance of essential job functions, verified by a physician, and benefits could extend up to 26 weeks if criteria were met. MetLife denied the recurrent claim, finding insufficient medical support for ongoing disability after March 2006, despite additional records and an EKG submitted on appeal. The court denied the defendants' summary judgment motion and granted the plaintiff's in part, ordering remand to the plan administrator for further reconsideration of the claim in light of the evidence and plan terms.
In United States v. Graham, Robert Graham sought a Certificate of Innocence under 28 U.S.C. § 2513 after his conviction for stealing $31,129 from his employer by cashing out sick leave without required board approval was reversed on appeal for insufficient evidence, following his service of 13 months in prison. The district court denied the motion, finding that Graham failed to meet the statutory requirements of proving he did not commit the charged acts or that his conduct constituted no offense, and that he did not by misconduct or neglect bring about his prosecution. The court reasoned that the evidence, while not proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, showed Graham was at least negligent in failing to seek board approval for the cash-out and that his actions involved broader abuses of trust that contributed to the prosecution. The ruling emphasized that reversal for evidentiary insufficiency does not automatically entitle a defendant to a certificate of innocence.
In this case, Ford Motor Credit appealed a bankruptcy court's confirmation of Roger Robertson's Chapter 13 plan, which proposed paying Ford's secured claim of about $30,000 on a 2006 pickup truck without interest over 60 months. The district court vacated the confirmation order and remanded for further proceedings. The court held that the claim qualified as a 910 Motor Vehicle Claim under the hanging paragraph of 11 U.S.C. § 1325(a), which prevented bifurcation under § 506 but did not render the claim unsecured. As a result, the plan had to provide the creditor with the present value of its allowed secured claim, requiring payment of interest at the rate set in Till v. SCS Credit Corp.