John George Koeltl

The case concerned an appeal by Cellmark Paper, Inc., a supplier of promotional paper to Ames Merchandising Corporation, from a bankruptcy court judgment that allowed Ames to recover $1.9 million in payments made to Cellmark during the 90 days before Ames’s 2001 bankruptcy filing as avoidable preferential transfers under Bankruptcy Code sections 547 and 550. The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court’s ruling after a bench trial. It held that Cellmark had failed to rebut the statutory presumption of Ames’s insolvency because it offered only evidence of book values rather than fair market values of Ames’s assets and liabilities. The court also held that Cellmark had not established the ordinary-course-of-business defense, because the timing and manner of the payments deviated from the parties’ prior dealings.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In United States v. McDonald, the defendant was convicted by a jury of securities fraud, wire fraud, and mail fraud after representing himself at trial. McDonald moved for a new trial under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33, claiming the court coerced the jury by instructing it to continue deliberating after a poll revealed a non-unanimous verdict on one count. The court denied the motion, holding that the brief instruction was not coercive when viewed in context. The original charge had already directed jurors not to abandon conscientious beliefs merely because they were outnumbered, and neither McDonald nor standby counsel raised any objection at the time. The court further noted that the circumstances showed no risk of improper pressure on holdout jurors.

criminal lawbusiness & regulatoryprocedure

In Jovani Fashion, Ltd. v. Cinderella Divine, Inc., a prom dress manufacturer sued multiple competitors, including Fiesta Fashions, alleging copyright infringement of original artistic elements (such as sequin and bead patterns plus wire-edged tulle) in one specific dress design, along with initial Lanham Act and state-law claims that were later dropped. The court had previously granted Fiesta’s motion to dismiss the remaining copyright claim under Rule 12(b)(6), holding that the asserted design elements were neither physically nor conceptually separable from the dress itself. Fiesta then moved for attorney’s fees and costs under 17 U.S.C. § 505 and 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a). The court denied the motion, reasoning that Jovani’s copyright claim raised a debatable question of separability and was not objectively unreasonable or pursued in bad faith, while the withdrawn Lanham Act claims did not create exceptional circumstances justifying a fee award.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved Jacquelyn White, a female correction officer at Lincoln Correctional Facility, who sued New York State, the Department of Correctional Services, and several supervisors. She claimed gender discrimination and retaliation under Title VII after a 2006 (and later 2008) Officer-in-Charge position was posted exclusively for male applicants, despite her qualifications and seniority, along with related equal-protection claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The defendants moved for summary judgment on all claims. Applying the Rule 56 standard, the court examined the undisputed facts—including the male-only posting language, White’s application and internal complaints, the timing of discipline, and the job’s stated duties—and determined that genuine issues of material fact existed on key elements of the Title VII discrimination and retaliation claims (such as causation and pretext) while some aspects of the § 1983 claims failed as a matter of law.

civil rightslabor & employmentprocedure

This case concerns disputes over the management of Little Rest Twelve, Inc. and Mutual Offshore Benefit Fund, featuring allegations of fraud, misconduct, and contested changes in corporate control between competing groups referred to as old and new management. The old management removed three related state court actions from New York Supreme Court to federal district court, claiming jurisdiction under bankruptcy removal statutes due to parallel proceedings in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida, and additionally citing a trademark issue in one case. The new management moved for abstention and remand, while creditor and employee intervenors sought to participate and oppose remand. The court examined the procedural history, including prior state court litigation involving fraud and breach claims, and assessed whether the matters qualified as core or related bankruptcy proceedings warranting federal jurisdiction or abstention.

procedurebusiness & regulatoryfederal power

This securities action was brought by the Employees’ Retirement System of the Government of the Virgin Islands on behalf of purchasers of mortgage pass-through certificates issued by J.P. Morgan Acceptance Corporation I and related entities, alleging violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 based on alleged misrepresentations in the offering documents. The defendants moved to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1) and failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). The court first addressed the standards for evaluating both motions, including the plaintiff's burden to establish jurisdiction and the plausibility requirements for pleading, then noted undisputed facts about the eleven series of certificates and the plaintiff's purchase of only one. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, primarily dismissing claims related to the ten series the plaintiff did not purchase due to lack of standing.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case concerned the ownership of three related U.S. patents known as the '455 Patent Family, which Picture Patents, LLC asserted in an infringement action against various retailers and sports organizations. After the defendants challenged standing on the ground that IBM rather than Picture Patents owned the patents, Picture Patents added IBM as a party and sought a declaratory judgment of ownership; IBM counterclaimed for declaratory judgments that it owned the patents. The parties cross-moved for partial summary judgment on the ownership claims. The court held that an intellectual-property assignment agreement Michelle Baker signed when she began working at IBM while a student at Columbia University automatically transferred her rights in the invention to IBM because she conceived it during her employment, the invention related to IBM's business, and she used IBM resources to develop it; the court rejected arguments that the agreement was ambiguous, that Baker's subjective understanding controlled, or that a statute of limitations barred IBM's claims.

propertyprocedure

This case involves cross-appeals in the long-running Johns-Manville bankruptcy proceedings, where Common Law Settlement Counsel sought to compel Travelers Indemnity Company to pay over $102 million in settlement proceeds under prior agreements and to hold Travelers in contempt for delaying payment during its appeal. The District Court denied the motion to certify both appeals directly to the Second Circuit under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d)(2). The court reasoned that the payment-order appeal raised only issues of private contract interpretation, which did not qualify as a matter of public importance, and that immediate certification would not materially advance the case because the Bankruptcy Court had already entered a final judgment and the normal appellate process through the District Court should be followed first.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

The case is an appeal by disbarred attorney Kenneth Heller from a bankruptcy court order denying his claim for legal fees and expenses in connection with his prior service as special counsel to a bankruptcy trustee in a wrongful death action. The district court affirmed the denial, holding that Heller's disbarment and repeated refusal to comply with orders to turn over case files precluded recovery on a quantum meruit theory. The court also denied Heller's related motions to compel disclosure of a mediator's contact information and for a stay or evidentiary hearing, as well as a sanctions motion by substitute counsel Jacoby & Meyers, on the ground that the validity of the underlying settlement was not at issue in the appeal.

procedure

The case concerned claims by Intellivision, a joint venture, and its three individual principals against Microsoft arising from a 2001 contract transferring rights to patent applications related to digital video recording technology. The plaintiffs alleged that Microsoft made fraudulent or negligent misrepresentations to induce them to enter the contract and that Microsoft breached a fiduciary duty created by the agreement. Microsoft moved for summary judgment, contending that the individual plaintiffs lacked standing, the misrepresentation claims were barred by the statute of limitations, and no fiduciary duty existed. The court granted summary judgment to Microsoft, finding that the misrepresentation-based claims were time-barred under applicable law and that the contract did not create a fiduciary relationship. The decision applied New York and Connecticut law to procedural and substantive issues respectively while resolving the motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 standards.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

The case involved the New York Civil Liberties Union's FOIA request to the Department of Homeland Security for documents concerning the Lower Manhattan Security Initiative, an NYPD surveillance camera program funded by DHS grants. After extensive document productions and negotiations, portions of 18 documents remained at issue, with DHS withholding details on camera locations, equipment types, implementation timelines, protected assets, and related information under FOIA exemptions 7(E) and 5. The court granted the agency's motion for partial summary judgment. It reasoned that the plaintiff had not shown the withheld information was publicly available in identical form, that the records were compiled for law enforcement purposes, and that disclosure could reasonably risk circumvention of the law, satisfying the standards for exemption 7(E).

civil rightsprocedurecriminal law

The case involved plaintiffs who consigned a drawing to Christie's in 1997, which was sold for $21,850 after being attributed to a 19th-century German artist, but later identified as a work by Leonardo da Vinci worth over $100 million. The plaintiffs sued for breach of fiduciary duty, breach of warranty, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, and conversion of the original frame, alleging failures in authentication and handling of the artwork. The court granted the motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), ruling that all claims were barred by the applicable three-year statutes of limitations under New York law. The core reasoning was that the causes of action accrued at the time of the sale or consignment in 1997-1998, and the plaintiffs' delay until 2010 in bringing suit was unreasonable, including for the frame claim under the demand-and-refusal rule.

propertyproceduretorts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

The case involved a motion by defendants T-Systems and Mihallik to compel a law firm to respond to a subpoena seeking all correspondence between plaintiff Patricia Seyler and her sister Julie Seyler, an attorney at the firm, in connection with an employment lawsuit alleging hostile work environment, retaliation, and emotional distress. The plaintiff claimed the materials were protected by attorney-client privilege under New York law. The court denied the motion, holding that the communications were made for the purpose of obtaining legal advice in a professional relationship and were predominantly legal in character, even though the sister was a family member specializing in patent law and no formal retainer existed. It further found no intentional waiver of the privilege from the limited disclosure of one email during discovery.

procedure

The case involved a dispute between First American International Bank (FAIB) and The Community’s Bank (TCB) over whether TCB was required to share half of a federal Bank Enterprise Award it received with FAIB pursuant to their agreements. TCB moved to dismiss the breach of contract complaint, arguing that federal regulations prohibited sharing the award without prior written consent from the Community Development Financial Institutions Fund (CDFIF), or alternatively that CDFIF was an indispensable party that had not been joined. The court denied the motion, reasoning that the regulations did not clearly bar the sharing of award proceeds without consent and that there was no substantial risk of inconsistent obligations if CDFIF was not joined, as CDFIF had indicated it does not track such sharing.

business & regulatoryprocedurefederal power

The case concerned the Stepanchenkos' motion to dissolve a US restraining order on their assets, issued ex parte to enforce five Russian court orders freezing property allegedly linked to a criminal scheme of rigging government real estate auctions. The district court examined 28 U.S.C. § 2467, enacted under CAFRA and amended by the Patriot Act, which permits federal courts to enforce foreign forfeiture or confiscation judgments and to issue restraining orders preserving assets before or after such judgments. The court reasoned that the statute allows restraining orders based on a certified foreign order or an affidavit showing a reasonable basis that the property will be subject to a final forfeiture judgment, while barring objections on grounds litigated in parallel foreign proceedings, and that a final foreign judgment is required for full enforcement but not for preliminary restraints.

criminal lawprocedurefederal power

The case involved participants in the American Express Incentive Savings Plan suing the company and various plan committees and officers under ERISA, alleging breaches of fiduciary duties of prudence and loyalty. The claims centered on the defendants' decision to maintain a required Company Stock Fund invested primarily in American Express shares during a period when the stock price fell sharply amid economic recession, and on failures to warn participants, reallocate assets after a 2007 plan amendment capping investments at 10%, provide adequate information, monitor other fiduciaries, or avoid conflicts. The defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that the plan documents mandated offering the stock fund and that no fiduciary breaches occurred. The court dismissed the complaint with prejudice, holding that the plan's requirements controlled, the presumption of prudence applied, and the allegations were conclusory or failed to state plausible claims for relief under the standards of Twombly and Iqbal.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

This case involved customers of Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC appealing the bankruptcy court's dismissal of their complaint against the SIPA trustee in the firm's liquidation proceeding. The plaintiffs challenged the trustee's determination of their customer claims, including the definition of net equity that excluded fictitious profits shown on account statements, the validity of releases they signed, deductions for preferential transfers, and alleged delays or breaches of fiduciary duty. The district court affirmed the dismissal, holding that the net equity claims were premature pending resolution of that issue on appeal to the Second Circuit, that the releases barred certain claims, and that fiduciary duty allegations depended on the outcome of the net equity dispute. The core reasoning centered on the procedural posture of the SIPA liquidation, the Claims Procedures Order, and the need for final resolution of the net equity definition before adjudicating related damages claims.

criminal lawbusiness & regulatoryprocedure

This case is a proposed class action securities lawsuit brought by investors in Swiss Reinsurance Company against the company and two senior officers, alleging violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 based on false or misleading statements about Swiss Re's risk management practices and exposure to mortgage-related securities from March to November 2007; the plaintiffs also asserted control-person claims under Section 20(a). The defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing that the complaint failed to meet the heightened pleading standards of Rule 9(b) and the PSLRA and, after the Supreme Court's decision in Morrison v. National Australia Bank, that the federal securities claims were barred because the shares were traded on the Swiss exchange. The court accepted the facts as alleged, applied the plausibility standard from Twombly and Iqbal, and required particularized allegations of misleading statements and scienter. It dismissed the claims with prejudice, concluding that Morrison precluded application of Section 10(b) to these foreign securities transactions and that the complaint independently failed to plead actionable misrepresentations or scienter with sufficient particularity.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case is a securities class action brought by investors in Arbitron, Inc., alleging violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 based on false or misleading statements about the company's rollout of its Portable People Meter (PPM) audience measurement technology, along with related control-person claims under Section 20(a). The defendants moved to dismiss the second amended complaint under Rules 12(b)(6) and 9(b) and the PSLRA. The court granted the motion to dismiss with prejudice as to defendant Creamer, finding that the complaint failed to plead with particularity facts giving rise to a strong inference of scienter on his part. The court denied the motions to dismiss as to Arbitron and defendant Morris, determining that the allegations were sufficient as to those parties, and denied the plaintiffs' motion to strike as moot.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involves plaintiffs Thomas Woodhams and Charlene Connors filing a purported class action against Allstate insurance entities, alleging that the insurers' 180-day deadline for completing repairs to receive full replacement cost coverage (rather than actual cash value) after a fire loss violates New York Insurance Law section 3404, breaches insurance contracts and settlement agreements, constitutes fraud and deceptive practices under GBL section 349, and breaches fiduciary duties and the implied covenant of good faith. The plaintiffs, who were denied replacement coverage after their 2007 fire loss because repairs could not be finished in time, sought premium refunds, declaratory relief, and damages. The defendants removed the case to federal court under CAFA and moved to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(6) and 12(c), arguing primarily that the deadline complies with law and contracts, that the filed rate doctrine bars challenges to approved premiums, and that certain claims lacked particularity or standing. The court accepted the allegations as true for the motion but applied standards requiring plausible claims, considered referenced documents, and analyzed issues including standing against certain Allstate subsidiaries and the applicability of the filed rate doctrine to bar premium refund claims.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure