Justia U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

BNY Mellon appealed the district court's judgment declaring that the Notice of Special Early Redemption issued by Chesapeake on March 15, 2013, was timely and effective to redeem certain senior notes (the "Notes") at the "Special Price" of 100% of the principal amount, plus interest accrued to the date of redemption. BNY Mellon argued that section 1.7(b) of the Supplemental Indenture authorized redemption at the Special Price only if accomplished no later than March 15, 2013, with notice given 30 to 60 days before, also during the Special Early Redemption Period. The court conclude that the terms of section 1.7 unambiguously terminated Chesapeake's right to redeem the Notes at the Special Price on March 15, 2013. Notice of such redemption needed to be given no later than February 13, 2013. Therefore, the notice given by Chesapeake on March 15, 2013 for redemption to occur on May 15, 2013 was untimely. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded with instructions. View "Chesapeake Energy Corp. v. Bank of New York Mellon Trust Co., N.A." on Justia Law

Defendant and his wife were indicted on drug possession and conspiracy charges. Husband moved to suppress evidence of drugs wife was concealing in her vaginal cavity. The district court granted the motion and the Government appealed. The court concluded, pursuant to United States v. Payner, that husband may not suppress on substantive due process grounds evidence obtained as a consequence of an illegal search of his wife rather than himself. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's judgment. View "United States v. Anderson" on Justia Law

NAF filed suit against Trading for breach of contract and sought damages, alleging that Trading wrongfully repudiated the contract and that, as a consequence of the breach, NAF lost financing commitments provided by third parties and was unable to complete the acquisition of Hampton. On appeal, NAF challenged the district court's judgment in favor of Trading. The court certified the following question to the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware: Where the plaintiff has secured a contractual commitment of its contracting counterparty, the defendant, to render a benefit to a third party, and the counterparty breaches that commitment, may the promisee-plaintiff bring a direct suit against the promisor for damages suffered by the plaintiff resulting from the promisor’s breach, notwithstanding that (1) the third-party beneficiary of the contract is a corporation in which the plaintiff-promisee owns stock; and (ii) the plaintiff-promisee’s loss derives indirectly from the loss suffered by the third-party beneficiary corporation; or must the court grant the motion of the promisor-defendant to dismiss the suit on the theory that the plaintiff may enforce the contract only through a derivative action brought in the name of the third-party beneficiary corporation? View "NAF Holdings, LLC v. Li & Fung (Trading) Ltd." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, Wing F. Chau and his company, filed suit against author Michael Lewis, his source, Steven Eisman, and Lewis's publisher for twenty-six allegedly defamatory statements in Lewis's book "The Big Short." On appeal, plaintiff challenged the district court's grant of defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissal of each of plaintiffs' claims. The court concluded that the law of defamation in New York is predicated on the free exchange of ideas and viewpoints; that marketplace can wound one's pride - for words can offend or insult - but simple slights are not the stuff of defamation; and, in this case, Chau's feelings may be hurt but his claims were rightly dismissed by the district court. The court considered all of plaintiffs' contentions and found them without merit. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Chau v. Lewis, et al." on Justia Law

This case arose from injuries suffered by several students during scholastic athletic activities. The students were insured by Central States, an Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq., employee welfare benefit plan that provides health insurance to participating Teamsters and their dependents. The students were also directly insured by separate accident policies written by Gerber. Central States subsequently filed suit against Gerber, alleging various claims for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief pursuant to federal common law and ERISA section 502(a)(3). The court held that although Central States might well be left without an appropriate remedy as a result of this decision, and that in the future its beneficiaries may be put in the unfortunate position of having to sue their insurance companies to receive benefits to which they are indisputably entitled, the claims raised by Central States are legal, not equitable, and therefore may not be brought under section 502(a)(3). Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of Gerber's motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). View "Cent. States, Se. & Sw Areas Health & Welfare Fund v. Gerber Life Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty of one count of possession of a firearm as a felon and subsequently appealed his sentence. The court held that, in determining whether crimes were committed "on occasions different from one another" for purposes of the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. 924(e), a court is limited to examining only materials approved by the Supreme Court in Taylor v. United States and Shepard v. United States. The court also held that a court may not rely upon a Presentence Report in determining whether crimes were committed "on occasions different from one another" for purposes of applying the ACCA, where the relevant facts described in the PSR were not derived from sources determined to be consistent with Taylor and Shepard. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Dantzler" on Justia Law

In this appeal, the district court held that the "separate entity rule" precludes a court from ordering a garnishee bank with branches in New York to restrain assets of judgment debtors held in foreign branches of the bank. The court certified the following question to the New York Court of Appeals: "whether the separate entity rule precludes a judgment creditor from ordering a garnishee bank operating branches in New York to restrain a debtor's assets held in foreign branches of the bank." The Court of Appeals answered the question in the affirmative. Consequently, the court held that the district court correctly concluded that the separate entity rule precludes the restraint of assets held in Standard Chartered Bank's foreign branches. Therefore, the court remanded to the district court with instructions to vacate the restraining order on defendants' assets. View "Motorola Credit Corp. v. Standard Chartered Bank" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against Crane, alleging that Crane, a supplier of shipboard equipment to the Navy, caused her husband to be exposed to asbestos during his service from 1974 to 1980 by failing to affix adequate asbestos warnings to the valves it supplied for the Navy's vessels. Crane removed the suit to federal court under the federal officer removal statute, 28 U.S.C. 1442(a)(1). Plaintiff then moved to remand to state court and the district court granted the motion. The court concluded that Crane has provided evidence that the Navy issued detailed and comprehensive specifications regarding the production and packaging of its valves. Therefore, Crane has provided sufficient evidence to create a colorable federal defense at this preliminary stage. The court reversed the judgment of the district court. View "Cuomo v. Crane Co." on Justia Law

The district court approved a settlement agreement between representative plaintiffs and Bank of America in a class action lawsuit alleging violations of the Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C. 77a et seq., and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. 78a et seq. The underlying litigation stemmed from Bank of America's negotiations with Merrill Lynch in 2008, which resulted in the two financial institutions merging in 2009. The court concluded that the district court did not violate the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, 15 U.S.C. 78u-4(a)(2)(A)(vi), 78u-4(a)(4), when it awarded reimbursement costs to representative plaintiffs; the notice of the statement of average amount of damages per share was not constitutionally deficient in violation of appellants' due process rights and the district court did not exceed the bounds of its discretion in approving the notice; the award of attorneys' fees was reasonable and appellants failed to identify any specific abuse of discretion on the part of the district court; and appellants' remaining arguments are without merit. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "In re Bank of America" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, delivery drivers for one or more defendant corporations owned by defendant Peter Glazman, filed suit under federal and state laws, alleging that defendants systematically undercompensated them for their work, purporting to treat them as franchisees while reaping disproportionate profits at plaintiffs' expense. At issue was the district court's resolution of New York law under its supplemental jurisdiction. The court found no abuse of discretion in the district court's exercise of supplemental jurisdiction; concluded that the statute of limitations barred the New York Franchise Sales Act (FSA), N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law 680 et seq., claims of six of the eight plaintiffs; although the court affirmed the FSA award as to the remaining two plaintiffs, the court determined that the related attorneys' fee award must be recalculated to reflect that modification in the substantive award; decided that the statute of frauds does not preclude plaintiffs from pursuing their New York Labor Law, N.Y. Labor Law 190 et seq., and contract claims against defendant; and remanded for further proceedings on these state-law claims and for recalculation of the FSA-related attorneys' fees. View "Kroshnyi v. U.S. Pack Courier Services, Inc." on Justia Law