Sign in to follow
Search Results

0 results for 'Norton Rose Fulbright'

You can use to get even better search results
Utica Mutual Insurance Company v. Abeille General Insurance Company
Publication Date: 2024-05-11
Practice Area: Civil Appeals
Industry:
Court: Appellate Division, Fourth Department
Judge: Unsigned Smith, J.P., Bannister, Montour, Greenwood, and Nowak, JJ.
Attorneys:
For plaintiff:
For defendant:
Case number: 0343

Utica Mutual Insurance Company v. Abeille General Insurance Company

Appellate Division, Second Department: February 16, 2024
Publication Date: 2024-02-16
Practice Area: Civil Appeals | Criminal Appeals
Industry:
Court: Appellate Division, Second Department, Hand Down List
Judge: Unsigned
Attorneys:
For plaintiff:
For defendant:
Case number: DOCKET

Handdown List released on:February 14, 2024

In re Nine West LBO Sec. Litig.
Publication Date: 2023-12-04
Practice Area: Bankruptcy
Industry: Consumer Products
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Judge: Circuit Judge Denny Chin
Attorneys:
For plaintiff: For Plaintiffs-Appellants Marc S. Kirschner and Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB, in all appeals except Docket Numbers 20-3334 and 20-3335: Robert J. Lack, Stan Chiueh, on the brief, Edward A. Friedman, Friedman Kaplan Seiler & Adelman LLP, New York, New York. For Plaintiffs-Appellants Marc S. Kirschner and Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB, in Docket Numbers 20-3257, 20-3290, 20-3334, 20-3335, 20-3964, and 20-3980: Allan B. Diamond and Ryan M. Lapine, Diamond McCarthy LLP, Dallas, Texas and Los Angeles, California.
For defendant: For Defendants-Appellees Public Shareholders (Robeco Capital Growth Funds, et al.): Adam M. Harris and Andrew G. Devore, on the brief, Gregg L. Weiner, Ropes & Gray LLP, New York, New York and Boston, Massachusetts. For Defendants-Appellees Individual Shareholders Mary E. Belle, Kathleen Nedorostek Kaswell, and Joseph Stafiniak: Danielle C. Lesser, on the brief, Y. David Scharf, Morrison Cohen LLP, New York, New York. For Defendant-Appellee Individual Shareholder Wayne Kulkin: Howard Seife, Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP, New York, New York. For Defendants-Appellees Individual Shareholders Katherine Butler, Linda Kothe, Richard Hein, Richard H. Hein Rev. Trust U/A 06/12/95, Mark DeZao, Janice Brown, Eric Dauwalter, Rosa Genovesi, Charles Pickett, Susan McCoy, Stacey Harmon, Kathleen O'Brien, James Capiola, Laurie Gentile, and Robyn Mills: Stuart Kagen and Christopher Greene, Kagen, Caspersen & Bogart, PLLC. For Defendants-Appellees Individual Shareholders Heather Harlan and George Sharp: Kevin J. O'Connor and Shannon D. Azzaro, Peckar & Abramson, P.C., New York, New York.
Case number: 20-3257-cv (L)

Safe Harbor Provision Shields Certificate and DTC Transfers, But Not Payroll Transfers

Tyger v. Precision Drilling Corp.
Publication Date: 2023-08-28
Practice Area: Labor Law
Industry: Energy
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Judge: Judge Bibas
Attorneys:
For plaintiff: Justin L. Swidler, Swartz Swidler, Haddonfield, NJ for appellants.
For defendant: Kimberly Cheeseman, Michael C. Crow, Katherine D. Mackillop, Norton Rose Fulbright, Houston, TX for appellees.
Case number: 22-1613

Court adopted test to determine whether employer required clothing or protective/safety gear was integral to an employee's job duties, which included factors such as the location of changing, whether government regulations required the clothing/gear, and the type of clothing or gear involved.

United States v. United States Sugar Corp.
Publication Date: 2023-08-07
Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
Industry: Federal Government | Food and Beverage | Manufacturing
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Judge: Judge Porter
Attorneys:
For plaintiff: Jonathan S. Kanter, Doha Mekki, Maggie Goodlander, David B. Lawrence, Daniel E. Haar, Nikolai G. Levin, Peter M. Bozzo, Brian Hanna, Jonathan Y. Mincer, U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division, Washington, DC for plaintiff-appellant.
For defendant: Melissa Arbus Sherry, Amanda P. Reeves, Lindsey S. Champlin, David L. Johnson, Charles S. Dameron, Latham & Watkins LLP, Washington, DC; Lawrence E. Buterman, Latham & Watkins LLP, New York, NY; Christopher S. Yates, Latham & Watkins LLP, San Francisco, CA; Jack B. Blumenfeld, Brian P. Egan, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Timothy G. Cameron, Peter T. Barbur, David R. Marriott, Daniel K. Zach, Michael K. Zaken, Lindsey J. Timlin, Hannah L. Dwyer, Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, New York, NY; Amanda L. Wait, Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP, Washington, DC; Kelly E. Farnan, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Peter J. Schwingler, Stinson LLP, Minneapolis, MN; Daniel K. Hogan, Hogan McDaniel, Wilmington, DE for defendant-appellees.
Case number: 22-2806

Rather than employ the hypothetical monopolist test analysis for determining product market under Section 7 of the Clayton Act, the Third Circuit affirmed the District Court's analysis using the actual market for refined sugar as the product market definition.

Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA v. FedEx Corp.
Publication Date: 2023-07-31
Practice Area: Insurance Litigation
Industry: Cargo and Shipping | Insurance
Court: Delaware Superior Court
Judge: Judge Davis
Attorneys:
For plaintiff: Robert Cahall, McCormick & Priore, P.C., Newark, DE; Daniel McNeel Lane, Jr., Kelly A. Potter, Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP, San Antonio, TX; Mina Matin, Lisa Schapria, Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP, New York, NY for plaintiff.
For defendant: Steven L. Caponi, Matthew B. Goeller, Megan E. O’Connor, K&L Gates LLP, Wilmington, DE; Carolyn M. Branthoover, Jessica L.G. Moran, K&L Gates LLP, Pittsburgh, PA; Richard M. Beck, Sally E. Veghte, Klehr Harrison Harvey Branzburg LLP, Wilmington, DE; James P. Ruggeri, Edward B. Parks, II, Sean T. Kelly, Ruggeri Parks Weinberg LLP, Washington, DC; Marc S. Casarino, Kennedys CMK LLP, Wilmington, DE for defendants.
Case number: N22C-08-488 EMD CCLD

Court stayed action under comity where another jurisdiction determined to proceed with parallel action despite that case being second-filed since that action had connections to the jurisdiction, and staying the present action would avoid duplicative litigation or inconsistent results.

OI European Group B.V. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela
Publication Date: 2023-07-24
Practice Area: Damages
Industry: Energy
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Judge: Judge Matey
Attorneys:
For plaintiff: Aubre Dean, Kevin A. Meehan, Juan O. Perla, Joseph D. Pizzurro, and Allesandra D. Tyler, Curtis Mallet-Prevost Colt & Mosle, New York, NY for appellant.
For defendant: Jonathan M. Albano, Christopher L. Carter, Morgan Lewis & Bockius, Boston, MA; Jody C. Barillare, Morgan Lewis & Bockius, Wilmington, DE; James D. Nelson, David B. Salmons, Morgan Lewis & Bockius, Washington, DC; Laura D. Jones, Peter J. Keane, Pachulski Stang Ziehl & Jones, Wilmington, DE; Robert H. Poole, II, Alston & Bird, Atlanta, GA; Rajat Rana, Alexander A. Yanos, Alston & Bird, New York, NY; Joshua S. Bolian, Riley & Jacobson, Nashville, TN; Marie McManus Degnan, Ashby & Geddes, Wilmington, DE; James E. Berger, DLA Piper, New York, NY; R. Craig Martin, DLA Piper, Wilmington, DE; Katherine G. Connolly, Norton Rose Fulbright, Los Angeles, CA; Matthew H. Kirtland, Norton Rose Fulbright, Washington, DC; Kevin J. Mangan, Stephanie S. Riley, Matthew P. Ward, Womble Bond Dickinson, Wilmington, DE; Ginger D. Anders, Kathleen A. Foley, Elaine J. Goldenberg, Donald B. Verrilli, Jr., Sarah Weiner, Munger Tolles & Olson, Washington, DC for appellees.
Case number: 23-1647

Despite Venezuela's opposition leader being recognized by the U.S. as the legitimate leader of the Venezuelan government, the continued exercise of extensive control by the opposition leader and his rival over Venezuela's national oil company meant the company continued as the alter ego of Venezuela and its assets remained subject to attachment to satisfy Venezuela's judgment debts.

Appellate Division, First Department: June 15, 2023
Publication Date: 2023-06-15
Practice Area: Civil Appeals | Criminal Appeals
Industry:
Court: Appellate Division, First Department, Appeals & Motions
Judge: Unsigned
Attorneys:
For plaintiff:
For defendant:
Case number: DOCKET

Appeals & Motions List released on:June 9 & 13, 2023

Appellate Division,First Department: November 3, 2022
Publication Date: 2022-11-03
Practice Area: Civil Appeals | Criminal Appeals
Industry:
Court: Appellate Division, First Department, Appeals & Motions
Judge: Unsigned
Attorneys:
For plaintiff:
For defendant:
Case number: DOCKET

Appeals & Motions List released on:November 1, 2022

United States v. United States Sugar Corp.
Publication Date: 2022-10-11
Practice Area: Antitrust
Industry: Federal Government | Food and Beverage
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Noreika
Attorneys:
For plaintiff: Laura Hatcher, Shamoor Anis, United States Attorney’s Office, Wilmington, DE; Brian Hanna, Jonathan Y. Mincer, Jenigh Garrett, Jill Ptacek, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC for plaintiff.
For defendant: Jack Blumenfeld, Brian Egan, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Lawrence Buterman, Latham & Watkins LLP, New York, NY; Amanda Reeves, Latham & Watkins LLP, Washington, DC; Elyse M. Greenwald, Latham & Watkins LLP, Los Angeles, CA; Daniel K. Hogan, Daniel C. Kerrick, Hogan McDaniel, Wilmington, DE; Peter J. Schwingler, Stinson LLP, Minneapolis, MN; Kelly E. Farnan, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Amanda L. Wait, Vic Domen, Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP, Washington, DC; Darryl Wade Anderson, Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP, Houston, TX; Christine A. Varney, David R. Marriott, Peter T. Parbur, Timothy G. Cameron, Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, New York, NY for defendants.
Case number: 21-1644 (MN)

Court denied a request by plaintiff to enjoin an acquisition of a sugar company the Government argued would result in a monopoly of the sugar market in the southeastern United States. The court reviewed evidence from trial noting that the markets for industrial consumers were different from retail consumers, thus broadening the base and the market. The court further found that plaintiff's argument was undermined by the fact that they control the sugar supply within the United States.

More from ALM

More from ALM

Legal Speak is a weekly podcast that makes sense of what’s happening in the legal industry.

Resources