In Levion v. Societe Generale, plaintiff Martin Levion sued his former employer for breach of contract and violations of New York Labor Law, claiming he was owed a non-discretionary annual bonus under a 1994 Compensation Principles agreement that set a formula-based bonus pool for his group, plus inclusion of revenues from specific transactions such as NDF deals. After he resigned in 2007, SG reduced his 2006 bonus and paid no pro-rata 2007 bonus, prompting the suit. The court granted SG’s motion for summary judgment on all claims. It held that the 1994 agreement applied only to 1994–1995 and was never extended by a new written contract, that subsequent bonuses were discretionary or evolved without creating an enforceable obligation, and that even under the old formula SG retained discretion to adjust net P&L for losses such as regulatory settlements. The statutory and common-law claims therefore failed as well.
Plaintiff Donna Ann Gabriele Chechele, a shareholder of Morgans Hotel Group Co., sued former Morgans President and CEO W. Edward Scheetz under Section 16(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to recover more than $3.5 million in alleged short-swing profits. She claimed Scheetz was a member of a shareholder “group” with NorthStar Capital Investment Corp. and two business partners that collectively beneficially owned over 10% of Morgans stock, based on a series of express or implied agreements including Control, Lock-Up, Registration Rights, and NorthStar Agreements. The court granted Scheetz’s motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), holding that the complaint failed to plead facts plausibly showing the existence of such a group under Section 13(d) and instead relied on conclusory labels and vague references to unquoted documents. The court denied leave to amend, finding the pleading deficiencies fundamental.
This case is a putative securities class action brought by several pension funds against Mechel OAO, a Russian mining company, and its officers, alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5. The plaintiffs claimed that Mechel failed to disclose during the class period that portions of its revenue came from anti-competitive conduct that violated Russian law, exposing the company to potential fines, penalties, and regulatory scrutiny from the Russian Federal Anti-Monopoly Service and other authorities. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss under Rules 9(b) and 12(b)(6) and the PSLRA. The core reasoning was that the complaint failed to plead with the required particularity that any statements were materially false or misleading, that the defendants had a duty to disclose the ongoing investigations or potential consequences, or that the defendants acted with scienter.
In United States v. Goffer, defendant Craig Drimal moved to suppress wiretap evidence gathered during a government investigation into an alleged conspiracy to commit securities fraud, claiming that monitoring agents violated Title III by failing to properly minimize numerous privileged calls between Drimal and his wife. The court held a suppression hearing and reviewed evidence showing that agents intercepted about 180 spousal calls over 60 days but that only a small number of those calls were not minimized in accordance with the court order and pre-wiretap instructions. The court denied the motion, reasoning that the agents overall demonstrated a high regard for privacy by minimizing the vast majority of calls promptly, that any violations were isolated and not systemic, and that suppression of the entire wiretap was not warranted under the statute when civil remedies are available for improper interceptions.
In this employment discrimination case, plaintiff Harold Petrisch, who identifies as Spanish/Hispanic, sued his former employer JP Morgan Chase and two managers under Title VII, Section 1981, and New York state and city human rights laws, alleging national origin discrimination and retaliation for complaining about mistreatment. The district court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing all claims, after accepting as true the facts in the defendants' unopposed Rule 56.1 statement due to the plaintiff's failure to file a proper opposition. The court found no direct evidence of discrimination, no showing that the employer's performance-based actions were pretextual, and insufficient evidence to support a hostile work environment or retaliation claim. It also imposed sanctions on the plaintiff's counsel for repeated violations of court orders regarding filings.
The case involved plaintiff Kyer L. Beachum, an African-American dock helper employed by AWISCO New York, who sued his former employer and the union Local 810 for race discrimination and retaliation under Title VII, Section 1981, the NYSHRL, and the NYCHRL, along with a claim against the union for breaching its duty of fair representation under Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act. The court granted summary judgment to both defendants on the federal and state claims, declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the city law claims, and denied the plaintiff's motions to amend the complaint as futile. The core reasoning was that the plaintiff failed to present evidence of discriminatory intent or that similarly situated employees were treated differently, and there was no basis to support the fair representation or retaliation claims.