In this securities class action, lead plaintiffs on behalf of purchasers of Asia Electronics common stock in its 1997 IPO alleged that the company's prospectus contained material misrepresentations and omissions by failing to disclose the company's non-compliance with Chinese law, in violation of Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933; claims were also brought against individual officers/directors and underwriters. The court, ruling on defendants' Rule 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss, held that the prospectus statements were not false or misleading as a matter of law because they accurately described the Chinese legal framework and the company's compliance posture. The court dismissed all claims with prejudice, finding the allegations contradicted by the plain language of the prospectus itself, and denied leave to amend on grounds of futility.
This case arises from the 1989 Consent Decree settling a lawsuit by the United States against the International Brotherhood of Teamsters (IBT) to eliminate organized crime influence and promote democracy in the union. The government moved to enjoin IBT member Daniel Slemko, a Canadian resident, from pursuing a lawsuit in Alberta courts that challenged the IBT's and Independent Review Board's authority to discipline him for alleged violations of the 1996 IBT election rules by collecting and mailing ballots. The court held that it had personal jurisdiction over Slemko because his Canadian action would interfere with the Election Rules and the Consent Decree's disciplinary processes, both of which have effects in the United States. It ruled that Slemko violated the All Writs Order and ordered him to withdraw the Canadian suit and pursue any claims only in this court.
labor & employmentelectionscriminal lawfederal power
In LaMorte v. United States, petitioner William LaMorte filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate his convictions for conspiring to import marijuana under 21 U.S.C. § 846 and engaging in a continuing criminal enterprise under 21 U.S.C. § 848, based on claims of ineffective assistance of counsel at trial and improper dual convictions under both statutes. The court applied the Strickland v. Washington two-prong test to the ineffective assistance claim and found it meritless. On the dual-conviction claim, the court dismissed the § 846 count while leaving the § 848 conviction and sentence intact. The court also transferred a second, successive § 2255 motion to the Second Circuit for certification under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244 and 2255 and denied a certificate of appealability.
This case stems from charges filed against Teamsters Local 848 officers James Santangelo and Richard Middleton for creating an improper severance payment plan and receiving advance payments in 1992 before required bylaw amendments were approved by the IBT General President, which violated the local's bylaws and their fiduciary duties under federal law. The Independent Review Board, created under the 1989 Consent Decree in the underlying action by the United States against the IBT to combat organized crime influence, held a de novo hearing after local union panels dismissed the charges and found the officers liable by a preponderance of the evidence, ordering them to pay fines to the local and implement corrective measures. The court reviewed the IRB decision under the arbitrary and capricious standard applicable to final agency action and affirmed it in full, concluding that the findings were supported by the evidence and the sanctions were proportionate.
This case arose from a consent decree between the United States and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters (IBT) aimed at eliminating organized crime influence and promoting democracy in the union. Robert T. Simpson, Jr., an IBT member, moved under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 60(b)(5) and (6) to vacate a prior judgment affirming the Independent Review Board's (IRB) decision permanently barring him from union positions for violating the IBT Constitution by allowing a barred individual to act as an agent. Simpson also sought reconsideration of the denial of his motion to recuse IRB member Frederick B. Lacey, citing a 1994 letter as evidence of bias. The court denied the motion, applying the evident partiality standard from the Federal Arbitration Act and concluding that the letter and surrounding circumstances did not establish partiality toward or against Simpson, rendering his claims speculative.
This diversity action centers on allegations that defendants, including Hansa World Cargo Service, Duferco entities, and individuals Fink and Cummings, engaged in a scheme to import Brazilian steel products into the United States without paying anti-dumping and countervailing duties assessed by U.S. Customs, using surety bonds issued by plaintiff Old Republic Insurance Company. Plaintiff claims the defendants fraudulently arranged for the release of goods without proper collateral or payment, with Hansa acting as importer of record and Duferco entities as alter egos or successors. The court addresses objections by several defendants to Magistrate Judge Bernikow's Reports and Recommendations on motions to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(6) and 9(b), drawing facts from the amended complaint. The core reasoning examines the sufficiency of fraud pleadings, principal-agent relationships under New York law, and the timeliness of claims, while considering attached contracts and customs regulations.