This case involved a dispute over an IRS Final Partnership Administrative Adjustment (FPAA) disallowing foreign tax credits claimed by Pritired 1, LLC, a partnership formed by U.S. companies including Principal Life Insurance Company, in connection with a transaction with French banks. The U.S. companies contributed $300 million that was pooled with $900 million from the French banks and invested in low-risk securities; the arrangement allowed the U.S. entities to claim credits for French taxes paid on the full $1.2 billion while providing the French banks below-market financing. After a bench trial, the court ruled for the United States, finding that the transaction should be recharacterized as a loan rather than a partnership investment because it lacked the intent to form a true partnership and exhibited predominant debt characteristics such as limited risk, fixed returns, and minimal voting rights. The court further held that the transaction lacked economic substance independent of its tax benefits and violated applicable anti-abuse rules under the tax code and regulations.
This case concerns Iowa State University Veterinary Services Corporation's (VSC) motion for a preliminary injunction against three former employees of a specialty veterinary clinic it acquired: Drs. Derek Nestor and Steven Reimer, and operations manager Paul Hanika. VSC alleged that the defendants breached non-competition and confidentiality agreements (and common-law duties) by launching a competing clinic, Iowa Veterinary Referral Center, and misappropriating confidential information. After a multi-day hearing, the court granted the injunction against Drs. Nestor and Reimer, finding a strong likelihood of success on the merits because their agreements were valid, assignable, and enforceable, with agreed-upon irreparable harm, while denying relief against Hanika due to insufficient likelihood of success on his claims. The decision balanced the Dataphase factors, including public interest in enforcing contracts and ISU's educational mission, and ordered a $2 million bond. The court rejected defenses based on Iowa law limiting university competition with private enterprise and questions about VSC's authority to own a veterinary practice.
This case involves RFMS Inc. and related entities seeking contribution from the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act for a portion of a $250,000 settlement paid in a state-court wrongful death and medical malpractice suit arising from care at a nursing home. The government moved to dismiss the new federal action, arguing that a prior federal court dismissal of similar third-party claims against the VA barred the suit under res judicata (claim preclusion) and collateral estoppel (issue preclusion). The court denied the motion, holding that the earlier dismissal rested on lack of subject matter jurisdiction because RFMS had sued the VA rather than the United States, and that any alternative rulings on service of process or failure to state a claim were therefore without preclusive effect. Because jurisdiction is a threshold issue that must be resolved before reaching the merits, the prior alternative grounds for dismissal did not constitute an adjudication on the merits.
This case involves parents Patrick and Michelle Korte suing Mead Johnson on behalf of their premature infant D.J.K., alleging that the company's Enfamil Human Milk Fortifier product, specifically Batch No. BMO05C, was contaminated with Enterobacter sakazakii bacteria and caused the child's serious illness. The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiffs could not prove medical causation. The court granted the motion in full, finding that the plaintiffs' expert witnesses failed to provide reliable evidence linking the product to the illness, that the timing of symptoms did not support causation, and that other potential sources of infection could not be ruled out. The decision rested on the insufficiency of both the plaintiffs' and defendant's expert analyses under applicable evidentiary standards for establishing causation in a products liability action.
