This case arose from the 2007 merger of Lyondell Chemical Company and Basell, after which the combined entity filed for bankruptcy in 2009; a litigation trustee then brought twenty-one claims under bankruptcy, state, Delaware, and Luxembourg law against various individuals and entities involved in the merger, alleging fraudulent transfers, breaches of fiduciary duty, and related misconduct. Defendants moved to withdraw the reference of the adversary proceeding from the bankruptcy court to the district court under 28 U.S.C. § 157(d) and Stern v. Marshall. The district court denied the motions, holding that the bankruptcy court retained authority over the core claims and that withdrawal was not required for the non-core claims.
RFP LLC sued SCVNGR, Inc. under the Lanham Act and New York law, alleging trademark infringement and related claims over SCVNGR's use of the 'Race for the Rock' mark for scavenger hunt contests offering an engagement ring as a prize. SCVNGR filed counterclaims against RFP and its president for tortious interference with a business relationship and deceptive acts under New York General Business Law § 349, based on cease-and-desist letters sent to SCVNGR and its partner Bremer. The court granted the motion to dismiss these counterclaims. It found that SCVNGR failed to adequately allege wrongful purpose or means or resulting injury for the tortious interference claim. For the § 349 claim, the court held there were insufficient allegations of deceptive conduct affecting New York consumers.
The case involved Sergey Aleynikov, a former Goldman Sachs computer programmer, who was charged with stealing the firm's proprietary high-frequency trading source code near the end of his employment to use at his new job with Teza Technologies. A jury convicted Aleynikov on two counts after a trial, and he moved under Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 29 and 33 to set aside the verdict, dismiss the indictment, or obtain a new trial. The district court denied the motions in full, holding that the evidence was sufficient to establish Aleynikov's intent to steal the code, to benefit himself or Teza, and to injure Goldman Sachs, as well as that the trading system was a product in interstate commerce and that the stolen source code qualified as a good, ware, or merchandise. The court also upheld its evidentiary rulings, discovery decisions, and handling of the summation and courtroom closure, finding no basis to disturb the verdict.
The case concerned trustees of union benefit funds suing a construction company under ERISA for unpaid contributions to welfare, pension, annuity, and related trusts required by a collective bargaining agreement with Local 282. The defendant had hired an outside trucking firm, Jo-Di, for hauling on a prevailing-wage project without notifying the union or funds, and the plaintiffs sought to recover contributions based on the hours worked by Jo-Di drivers. The court granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, awarding the unpaid contributions plus interest, fees, and damages. It reasoned that the CBA required the employer to ensure outside suppliers provided equivalent wages and benefits, placed responsibility on the employer for noncompliance after notice, and obligated reporting of such hires; the defendant failed to meet these conditions, making it liable for the contributions attributable to the subcontracted work.
The case concerned a shipment of thin-walled steel pipes purchased by Ferrostaal and transported by sea from Shanghai to New Orleans in 2006, which arrived damaged allegedly due to improper stowage. After a bench trial, the court held the vessel M/V Akili liable in rem under COGSA for the cargo damage but dismissed personal liability claims against the vessel's owner Akela and manager Ami. The core reasoning was that COGSA applied to the carriage via the bill of lading and charter terms, the evidence showed the pipes were inadequately secured causing damage, and the owners and manager were not carriers under the relevant agreements even though the vessel itself remained subject to in rem liability.
This case concerns DMX, a provider of background and foreground music services, which sought a through-to-the-audience blanket license from ASCAP for public performance rights, adjusted to reflect direct licenses DMX had already obtained or planned to obtain from music publishers. Unable to agree on terms, the parties asked the court under ASCAP's antitrust consent judgment to set a reasonable rate. The court evaluated ASCAP's proposals for a flat-fee blanket license or one with a static carve-out, as well as DMX's proposal for a blanket fee consisting of a floor component plus an unbundled music fee derived from direct-license benchmarks. It concluded that DMX's structure was reasonable and supported by evidence from existing agreements, including those with Sony and other publishers, while ASCAP's alternatives did not adequately account for the direct licensing program.