This case involved purchasers of In-Store Advertising, Inc. stock from its July 1990 IPO who alleged that the company's prospectus contained materially false and misleading financial statements regarding revenue recognition and prospects; after earlier complaints against company insiders and underwriters, plaintiffs added auditor KPMG Peat Marwick as a defendant in a July 1993 amended complaint asserting federal securities claims under Sections 11 and 10(b) plus state-law fraud and negligent misrepresentation theories. The court converted Peat Marwick's motion to dismiss into one for summary judgment and granted it in part, dismissing the federal claims as time-barred while denying the motion without prejudice as to the state claims. The federal claims were held untimely because plaintiffs were on inquiry notice of potential auditor liability by mid-1991 upon receipt of board books and workpapers yet failed to sue with reasonable diligence within the one-year limitations period after that discovery.
Landmark West!, a neighborhood group, sued the United States Postal Service and developers to stop construction of a 46-story mixed-use skyscraper in Manhattan, claiming the USPS violated the National Environmental Policy Act by failing to prepare an adequate environmental assessment or impact statement for its role in the project. The USPS had entered an agreement to vacate its old leased space and acquire a new condominium facility in the building in exchange for a partnership interest and cash payment. The court granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment. It held that the USPS's limited involvement did not convert the primarily private development into a major federal action requiring broader NEPA review, and that the administrative record adequately supported the USPS's determination that an alternative building of similar size and mass would likely be built without its participation.
This case involves multiple defendants charged with conspiring to defraud the U.S. Customs Service through underpayment of import duties on Chinese clothing imports from 1989 to 1991, plus related counts of smuggling, false statements, and an IRS conspiracy charge against some defendants. The defendants filed pretrial motions to suppress evidence from a search of Sunlight's offices (claiming false statements in the warrant affidavit and lack of particularity), to dismiss parts of the indictment as multiplicitous, to sever the IRS conspiracy count and charges against one defendant, and for a bill of particulars and additional discovery. The court ruled that some defendants lacked standing to challenge the search while Sunlight had a reasonable expectation of privacy in its offices, rejected arguments based on the closely regulated industry doctrine, granted severance of the tax conspiracy count, and addressed the remaining motions in its order.
This case concerns investor Gordon Lenz's 1981 purchase of a limited partnership interest in a Florida tennis resort project promoted as a tax shelter, where he signed agreements warranting that he understood the risks, had not relied on profit or tax assurances, and accepted potential conflicts of interest. Lenz later brought claims alleging fraud and mismanagement after the investment failed to produce the expected benefits. The court held that provisions in the partnership agreement waiving Lenz's right to a formal accounting are enforceable under Oklahoma law. Its reasoning focused on the absence of overriding public policy concerns that would invalidate the waiver, the specific representations and warranties Lenz made in the subscription documents, and distinctions from prior cases involving stronger statutory protections for third parties or public resources.
The case involved former American employees of DCA Advertising Inc., a New York subsidiary of the Japanese firm Dentsu, who alleged they were terminated due to their national origin in violation of Title VII and the New York Human Rights Law. Dentsu moved to dismiss the claims against it on multiple grounds, including lack of personal jurisdiction, that it was not an employer under the statutes, failure to name it in the EEOC charge, and protection under the U.S.-Japan Friendship, Commerce and Navigation Treaty. The court converted the motion into one for summary judgment. It granted the motion in part, finding no direct employer status or jurisdiction in some respects, and denied it in part, recognizing an identity of interest with DCA for administrative filing purposes and limiting but not eliminating treaty-based defenses. The reasoning centered on corporate separateness, control over employment decisions, and statutory definitions of employer liability.
The case involved plaintiff Jaroslav Hrubec, a Czechoslovakian immigrant convicted of drug offenses, who posted a $10,000 INS delivery bond in 1989 while appealing a deportation order; the INS later declared the bond breached due to his failure to report an address change and denied recovery. Hrubec sued the INS and its officials in federal court to recover the bond plus $1 million in punitive damages. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, holding that the breach determination involved factual questions requiring exhaustion of administrative remedies through an appeal to the INS Administrative Appeals Unit. It reasoned that agency expertise was needed for such issues and that Hrubec had not received required notice of his appeal rights, so it granted him 30 days from the order to file an administrative appeal. The court did not address the punitive damages claim.