Case Summaries

[12/29] Abbotts v. Campbell
Participants in a Common Stock Purchase Agreement failed to show that the nondisclosure of a waiver of certain provisions of that Agreement was a proximate cause of their investment losses. The investors also failed to show that they exercised reasonable diligence warranting equitable tolling of the six-year statute of limitations specified by Minnesota Statute section 541.05.

[12/29] People v. Roscoe
Following judgment finding defendants jointly and severally liable for penalties pursuant to laws governing underground storage of hazardous substances, judgment against defendant is affirmed where the responsible corporate officer doctrine applies to Health and Safety Code section 25299(a)(6) of the tank laws and thus subjects to liability as an "operator" a corporate officer who had "a responsible share in the furtherance of the transaction which the statute outlaws", even where the corporation itself was also found to be the operator.

[12/29] Hemispherx Biopharma, Inc. v. Johannesburg Consolidated Investments
In a lawsuit arising out of an alleged hostile takeover attempt of a publicly traded company, dismissal of complaint is reversed and remanded in part and affirmed in part where: 1) the district court erred in dismissing the claim against co-defendant for insufficient service of process when co-defendant had already waived that defense; 2) the district court's dismissal of one count is affirmed as plaintiff did not allege that defendants were beneficial owners of plaintiff's stock, thus such defendants were not part of a section 13(d)(3) group required to file a Schedule 13D form; 3) a fraud claim was not within the scope of an arbitration clause because the conduct of the South African defendants giving rise to the claim was not "reasonably foreseeable" in 1994 when the licensing agreement and arbitration provision were executed, and thus the dispute did not "arise" out of the agreement; and 4) even in light of the general federal policy in favor of private commercial dispute resolution, the parties' licensing agreement arbitration clause did not cover not cover the fraud claim.

[12/23] Adcock v. Freightliner LLC
In an action involving a card check agreement between co-defendants, dismissal of complaint for failure to allege a violation is affirmed where the district court correctly determined that co-defendant did not deliver a "thing of value" to remaining co-defendants in violation of section 302 of the Labor Management Relations Act.

[12/22] Illinois Bell Tele. Co., Inc. v. Global NAPs Illinois, Inc.
In a suit against a group of affiliated corporations claiming that defendants failed to pay for telecommunications services that the plaintiff had sold to a company in violation of plaintiff's federal tariffs filed with the FCC, its state tariffs filed with the Illinois Commerce Commission, and an interconnection agreement, a dismissal ruling is reversed where plaintiff produced enough evidence to bring defendant-parent company within the district court's personal jurisdiction.

More...