This case arose from the liquidation of Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC after the exposure of its massive Ponzi scheme, with Trustee Irving Picard suing Madoff's sons Mark and Andrew to recover alleged fraudulent transfers, disallow their claims against the estate, and assert common law claims including breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, and unjust enrichment. The sons moved to dismiss the common law claims on grounds including preemption by the Martin Act and the doctrine of in pari delicto, but the Bankruptcy Court denied the motion in relevant part. The District Court denied the sons' request for leave to file an interlocutory appeal, reasoning that the common law claims overlapped directly with the determination of their proofs of claim for compensation and other amounts, allowing the Bankruptcy Court to retain authority to resolve them under Stern v. Marshall without requiring an Article III court at this stage, and that an appeal would not materially advance the overall litigation since other claims would proceed regardless.
This case involved Eatoni Ergonomics suing Research in Motion (RIM) for alleged violations of Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act and New York's Donnelly Act, claiming that RIM maintained monopoly power in markets for QWERTY and reduced QWERTY smartphones through a course of anticompetitive conduct stemming from a 2005 patent dispute settlement, including refusing collaboration and denying access to its Blackberry platform as an essential facility. After prior arbitration resolved related contract and fraud claims against Eatoni, the court addressed the amended complaint's exclusive focus on antitrust allegations. The court granted RIM's motion to dismiss with prejudice, holding that Eatoni failed to state a plausible claim because it did not adequately allege willful acquisition or maintenance of monopoly power through anticompetitive acts, as individual lawful unilateral actions cannot aggregate into a violation, and RIM had no antitrust duty to share its intellectual property or collaborate when alternatives existed for Eatoni.
The case involves the Bank of New York Mellon, as trustee for hundreds of mortgage securitization trusts, filing a petition in New York state court under Article 77 to obtain approval of a large-scale settlement with Countrywide and Bank of America regarding claims of breached representations and warranties on toxic mortgage loans. Walnut Place entities, certificate holders in some of the trusts, removed the proceeding to federal court, and BNYM moved to remand it to state court. The court denied the motion to remand. It reasoned that the Article 77 proceeding constitutes a civil action subject to federal removal, that the mass settlement implicates substantial federal interests in financial market integrity, and that no exceptions like the CAFA home-state rule barred federal jurisdiction.
This securities class action, consolidated under In re Smith Barney Transfer Agent Litigation, alleged violations of §§ 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and breach of fiduciary duty under the Investment Advisers Act against Smith Barney Fund Management LLC and related defendants, stemming from the same facts as a prior SEC settlement. After six years of litigation including motions to dismiss, an appeal, discovery, and class certification efforts, it emerged that the appointed Lead Plaintiff, Operating Local 649 Annuity Trust Fund, had never purchased the securities at issue due to a mislabeling of similar-named funds on its statements. The court granted Local 649's withdrawal as Lead Plaintiff because it was never a proper plaintiff with standing, denied the request to amend the complaint to add a new lead plaintiff at that time, stayed discovery, and ordered a new briefing schedule for appointment of lead plaintiff and counsel to ensure suitable class representatives.
This case involves a dispute between the Zappa Family Trust and Rykodisc, Inc. over rights to Frank Zappa's sound recordings under a 1994 agreement and 1999 settlement, with claims and counterclaims alleging copyright infringement and breach of contract related to compilations like Strictly Commercial, restricted tracks, digital distribution on iTunes, and the album Lather. The court granted Ryko's motion for partial summary judgment in part, finding that the 1994 agreement transferred broad rights to exploit Subject Masters in various formats including vinyl and that certain CD sales and digital uses did not violate restrictions, while denying summary judgment on other claims such as those involving Vault Masters and implying an issue of fact on an implied license for Lather. ZFT's motion for partial summary judgment was denied entirely. The reasoning centered on contractual interpretation of transferred rights, retained vault materials, use restrictions on specific masters, and evidence of awareness or implied consent from conduct and prior royalty payments.
The case concerned ownership of a 1917 Egon Schiele drawing that Bakalar purchased in good faith in 1964 from a New York gallery. Defendants Vavra and Fischer, heirs to Austrian Jewish collector Fritz Grunbaum's estate, counterclaimed for conversion and replevin, alleging the work had been seized or sold under duress during the Nazi era. On remand, the district court applied New York law instead of Swiss law and again entered judgment for Bakalar, holding that the defendants' claims were barred by laches given their decades-long delay in pursuing the property. The court reaffirmed factual findings that the drawing had reached Switzerland through Grunbaum's sister-in-law before entering the U.S. market and denied the defendants' related motion as moot.