News
Securities
- [03/09] Jarden, Mr. Coffee's maker, ups share repurchases
- [03/09] Broadridge Financial buys StockTrans
- [03/09] EADS loss weighs on European stocks
- [03/09] World markets mixed after lackluster US finish
Financial Services
- [03/09] When It Pays to Blow the Whistle
- [03/09] Korn/Ferry International Announces Third Quarter Fiscal 2010 Results of Operations
- [03/09] Scotiabank reports strong revenue growth and first quarter earnings of $988 million
- [03/09] ICIS Pricing Launches Weekly Polypropylene Europe Margin Report
Securities Litigation
- [03/03] 10th guilty plea in Galleon insider trading case
- [02/04]
Employment Practices
- [03/09] Senate to take up unemployment insurance extension
- [03/08] Allergan CEO got $11.1M in compensation in 2009
- [03/08] Court will decide if NASA checks can continue
- [03/04] No is no: More men file sexual harassment claims
Case Summaries
Dispute Resolution & Arbitration
[03/04]
Pac. Bell Tel. Co. v. Cal. Pub. Utils. Comm.
In a telecommunications company's appeal from (1) the district court's confirmation of an arbitral order affirming the California Public Utilities Commission's (CPUC) requirement that plaintiff lease entrance facilities to competitor local exchange carriers (LECs) at Total Element Long Run Incremental Cost (TELRIC) rates for the purpose of interconnection; and (2) the district court's order vacating the arbitrator's affirmance of CPUC's conclusion that 47 C.F.R. section 51.319(e)(2)(ii)(B) applied only on routes where competitive LECs were not "impaired" as to DS3 transport circuits, the orders are affirmed where: 1) FCC regulations authorized state public utilities commissions to order incumbent LECs to lease entrance facilities to competitive LECs at regulated rates for the purpose of interconnection; and 2) the plain language of the governing regulation, 47 C.F.R. section 51.319(e (2)(ii)(B), limited a competitive LEC to a maximum of ten DS1 circuits along any route regardless of whether the competitive LEC was impaired as to DS3 lines.
[03/01]
Powershare, Inc. v. Syntel, Inc.
In parties' action for breach of a business agreement, a district court's denial of defendant's motion to stay litigation pending arbitration is reversed where: 1) the agreement contains a mandatory arbitration provision; and 2) the standard of review to be employed by a district judge when reviewing a magistrate judge's order on a motion to stay litigation pending the resolution of a parallel arbitration proceeding is under the "clearly erroneous or contrary to law" standard elucidated in Rule 72(a).
[02/26]
Gravillis v. Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage Co.
In plaintiff's action against his brokers for failing to disclose the structural damage of his home, trial court's decision affirming the arbitrator's award of damages in favor of the plaintiff is affirmed as the arbitration agreement does not explicitly and unambiguously provide for an expanded scope of review.
[02/24]
Drum v. San Fernando Valley Bar Ass'n
In plaintiff's action against a bar association, trial court's grant of defendant's dismissal is affirmed as a voluntary bar association did not engage in an unfair business practice when, allegedly, it unilaterally refused to sell its membership mailing list to a person who intended to offer low-priced mediation services in competition with higher-priced mediation offered by some of the association's members.
Associated Press text, photo, graphic, audio and/or video material shall not be published, broadcast, rewritten for broadcast or publication or redistributed directly or indirectly in any medium. Neither these AP materials nor any portion thereof may be stored in a computer except for personal and non-commercial use. Users may not download or reproduce a substantial portion of the AP material found on this web site. AP will not be held liable for any delays, inaccuracies, errors or omissions therefrom or in the transmission or delivery of all or any part thereof or for any damages arising from any of the foregoing.

