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

This case stemmed from three research projects at two production plants in Hahnville, Louisiana that UCC conducted during the 1994 and 1995 tax-credit years. The research was conducted on products that were in the process of being manufactured for sale and were in fact sold. Nevertheless, UCC requested a research credit not just for the additional costs of supplies associated with the research. Instead, it requested a research credit for the costs of all the supplies used in the production of the product even though those supplies would have been used regardless of any research performed. The Tax Court held that UCC was not entitled to research credits for the entire amount spent for the supplies at issue. Instead, as the Commissioner argued, it was entitled to credit for only those additional supplies that were used to perform the research. The court affirmed the judgment and denied UCC a credit for supplies used in the conduct of qualified research under 26 U.S.C. 41. View "Union Carbide Corp. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs brought suit against defendants on behalf of themselves and similarly situated plaintiffs, alleging, inter alia, that defendants engaged in unlawful, unfair, and deceptive practices through unauthorized enrollment practices known as "post transaction marketing" and "data pass." At issue was whether plaintiffs were bound to arbitrate their dispute with defendants as a consequence of an arbitration provision that defendants asserted was part of a contract between the parties. The court concluded that despite some limited availability of the arbitration provision to plaintiffs, they were not bound to arbitrate this dispute. In regards to the email at issue, under the contract law of Connecticut or California - either of which could apply to this dispute - the email did not provide sufficient notice to plaintiffs of the arbitration provision, and plaintiffs therefore could not have assented to it solely as a result of their failure to cancel their enrollment in defendants' service. In regards to the hyperlink at issue, the court concluded that defendants forfeited the argument that plaintiffs were on notice of the arbitration provision through the hyperlink by failing to raise it in the district court. View "Schnabel et al. v. Trilegiant Corp. et al." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of the People's Republic of China, petitioned for review of a decision by the BIA affirming the decision of the IJ denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. The court concluded that the BIA failed to consider petitioner's opposition in its full factual and political context, and the court rejected the BIA's conclusion that opposition to corruption at one workplace - without evidence that the corruption extended to other workplaces - could not serve as the basis for asylum. Finally, the court concluded that the BIA erroneously failed to consider petitioner's claim of imputed political opinion. Accordingly, the court granted the petition and remanded to the BIA for further proceedings. View "Yu v. Holder" on Justia Law

The SEC filed a civil enforcement action against defendants alleging insider trading in violation of section 10(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. 78j(b), and Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. 240.10b-5. The SEC alleged that Defendant Strickland learned material non-public information in the course of his employment and revealed it to Defendant Black, his friend and hedge fund employee, and that Black in turn relayed the information to his boss, Defendant Obus, who traded the information. The court held that the SEC's evidence created genuine issues of material fact as to each defendant's liability under the misappropriation theory and therefore summary judgment for defendants was erroneous. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded. View "Securities and Exchange Commission v. Obus, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the district court's order dismissing a putative securities class action brought under sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 77k, l(a)(20, o, on behalf of all persons who acquired certain mortgage-backed certificates issued under the same allegedly false and misleading shelf registration statement, but sold in 17 separate offerings by 17 unique prospectus supplements. The court held that plaintiff had class standing to assert the claims of purchasers of certificates backed by mortgages originated by the same lenders that originated the mortgages backing plaintiff's certificates, because such claims implicated "the same set of concerns" as plaintiff's claims. The court further held that plaintiff need not plead an out-of-pocket loss in order to allege a cognizable diminution in the value of an illiquid security under section 11. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part and vacated in part the judgment of the district court and remanded with further instructions to reinstate plaintiff's sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 claims to the extent they were based on similar or identical misrepresentations in the Offering Documents associated with certificates backed by mortgages originated by the same lenders that originated the mortgages backing plaintiff's certificates. View "Neca-Ibew Health & Welfare Fund v. Goldman Sachs & Co." on Justia Law

Christian Louboutin, a fashion designer best known for his use of red lacquer on the outsole of the shoes he designs, appealed the district court's order denying a motion for preliminary injunction against alleged trademark infringement by Yves Saint Laurent (YSL). The court concluded that the district court's conclusion that a single color could never serve as a trademark in the fashion industry was inconsistent with the Supreme Court's decision in Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Products Co., and that the district court therefore erred by resting its denial of Louboutin's preliminary injunction motion on that ground. The court further concluded that Louboutin's trademark, consisting of a red, lacquered outsole on a high fashion woman's shoe, has acquired limited "secondary meaning" as a distinctive symbol that identified the Louboutin brand. Pursuant to Section 37 of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1119, the court limited the trademark to uses in which the red outsole contrasted with the color of the remainder of the shoe. Because Louboutin sought to enjoin YSL from using a red sole as part of a monochrome red shoe, the court affirmed in part the order of the district court insofar as it declined to enjoin the use of the red lacquered outsoles in all situations. However, the court reversed in part the order of the district court insofar as it purported to deny trademark protection to Louboutin's use of contrasting red lacquered outsoles. View "Christian Louboutin S.A. v. Yves Saint Laurent America Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs appealed from two orders of the district court granting in part and denying in part each side's motion for summary judgment resolving the applicability of Exemption 6 of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(6), to a federal agency's decision to withhold names and duty-station information from personnel records for over 800,000 federal civilian employees. The court held that the district court correctly found that the names could be withheld, but erred insofar as it found that the agency must disclose all of the duty-station information. View "Long v. Office of Personnel Management" on Justia Law

Defendants appealed from the district court's denial of their motion for judgment as a matter of law and their motion for a new trial following a jury verdict partially in favor of plaintiff on his claims regarding the misuse of a research training grant brought on behalf of the government pursuant to the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. 3729 et seq., and awarding principally $855,714 in treble actual damages. The court concluded that: (1) where the government had provided funds for a specified good or service only to have defendant substitute a non-conforming good or service, a court could, upon a proper finding of False Claims Act liability, calculate damages to be the full amount of the grant payments made by the government after the material false statements were made; (2) there was sufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury could determine that the false statements at issue were material to the government's funding decision; and (3) the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding evidence of inaction on the part of the NIH in response to plaintiff's complaint regarding the fellowship program in which he had been enrolled. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States ex rel. Daniel Feldman v. Van Gorp" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the district court's order denying plaintiff's application for a turnover order pursuant to N.Y. C.P.L.R. 5225(b). The court certified questions to the New York Court of Appeals regarding the appropriateness of such an order where the assets were in the direct possession not of the garnishee, but rather in the garnishee's subsidiary. View "Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands v. Millard" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of seven offenses involving narcotics, racketeering, and firearm offenses. On appeal, defendant argued that his Sixth Amendment right to represent himself at trial was violated by the district court's failure to grant his request to proceed pro se. The court concluded that defendant abandoned his request to represent himself, and therefore the court affirmed the judgment of conviction. View "United States v. Barnes" on Justia Law