The case concerned a trust and its trustees suing Signature Bank for depleting trust funds after a former trustee initiated unauthorized withdrawals, with claims for gross negligence, breach of contract, aiding and abetting fraud, and New York UCC violations under sections 4-A-204 and 4-401. The court granted the bank's motion for summary judgment dismissing all claims and denied the plaintiffs' cross-motion for partial summary judgment as well as their motion to strike the bank's filing. The core reasoning was that tort claims like gross negligence were not cognizable absent an independent duty separate from the contract, the bank lacked actual knowledge or conscious avoidance sufficient for aiding and abetting fraud, and the UCC claims failed because the account setup and transactions did not violate the relevant provisions or bank policies.
This case is a consolidated securities class action brought by investors against sanofi-aventis SA and several of its executives alleging violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, as well as control-person liability under Section 20(a), based on statements and omissions during the class period concerning the company's rimonabant drug application to the FDA and related suicidality data. After an earlier dismissal with leave to amend, plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint, and defendants moved to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(6) and 9(b). The court denied the motion as to sanofi, Le Fur, and Spek, finding that the amended complaint sufficiently alleged actionable misstatements or omissions and a strong inference of scienter for those defendants, but granted the motion as to the remaining individual defendants for failure to adequately plead those elements. Separately, the court addressed but did not grant plaintiffs' request for a letter of request under the Hague Convention for documents from the European Medicines Agency, noting procedural deficiencies and the PSLRA discovery stay.
This case is an appeal by R2 Investments, LDC and Law Debenture Trust Company from a bankruptcy court order confirming Charter Communications' pre-negotiated Chapter 11 reorganization plan, which restructured over $8 billion in debt, reinstated senior credit facilities, and included settlements with key stakeholders like Paul Allen. The appellants argued that the bankruptcy court erred on issues including plan confirmation requirements, releases, and creditor treatment, and sought to vacate the order in whole or part. Appellees moved to dismiss the appeals as equitably moot. The district court evaluated whether substantial consummation of the plan and the integral nature of its provisions made effective relief impossible without unraveling the reorganization, concluding that the appeals were equitably moot.
Keith Turner, a white American former Building Services Manager at NYU Hospital Center, sued his employer and related NYU entities alleging unlawful discrimination, harassment, and retaliation based on race, color, and national origin under Title VII, Section 1981, and New York state and city human rights laws following his termination in June 2004. The defendants moved for leave to amend their answer and for summary judgment. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants, concluding that Turner had not shown he engaged in protected activity or that his termination was motivated by unlawful discrimination rather than documented performance deficiencies, and that his internal complaints concerned favoritism toward another employee rather than conduct prohibited by the statutes.
Pro se plaintiff Susan M. MacEntee sued her employer IBM, alleging harassment and discrimination based on her depression in violation of Title VII, the ADA, New York State Human Rights Law, and common law intentional infliction of emotional distress. The claims stemmed from workplace issues during job training and performance reviews after her return from disability leave, including conflicts with trainers and a disputed raise. Defendant IBM moved to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim and 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction over the state claims. The court granted the motion in full and dismissed the Second Amended Complaint. The decision rested on the plaintiff's failure to adequately plead required elements of her claims, such as a proper request for accommodation and a causal link to adverse actions, along with jurisdictional bars on re-litigating certain state agency findings.
The case involved Theatre Row appealing a bankruptcy court order that allowed H & I Inc.'s claim for a 2% interest in certain distributions from Theatre Row's Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The bankruptcy court had dismissed Theatre Row's objections to the claim based on a prior New York state court proceeding that upheld the validity of the 1986 assignment of the interest to H & I. On appeal, the district court affirmed the bankruptcy court's decision, holding that the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel barred Theatre Row from relitigating the enforceability of the 2% interest through new defenses such as veil piercing or breach of fiduciary duty. The state court had already determined that the assignment was valid and that no fraud occurred, and the current objections arose from the same facts.
