Litigation

Around the web, July 24

By Ted Frank

• Eleventh Circuit: Engle tobacco case only applies to claim preclusion, not issue preclusion. [Brown v. R.J. Reynolds; Forbes; Bashman]
• Daniel Schwartz suggests that the Second Circuit decision in District Lodge 26 v. United Tech. Corp. dampens the business judgment rule, but I don't find it as scary. Pratt & Whitney signed a bad collective bargaining agreement that obviated their ability to use business judgment in the future, and the court said as much when enforcing that CBA. Could it apply to employment contracts? Absolutely—which is why executives with for-cause employment agreements can walk away with small fortunes when a board of directors uses its business judgment to fire them. That the court rejected a Pratt & Whitney's erroneous use of the business-judgment defense shouldn't worry those who appropriately use that doctrine.
• "Persuade me that this is about securities fraud rather than politics." Dell benefits from the "Apple Rule": the government doesn't come down like a hammer on popular CEOs. [Ribstein]
• Slate calls for Ken Feinberg to ignore the law and turn the $20B BP claim fund into an all-purpose slush fund. [Slate]

• Innocent identity theft victim can't get himself from Washington state sex offender registry. [Greenfield]

• Rep. Alan Grayson attempts to have standing requirement removed in DC consumer protection law. [PLF via OL]
• How does progressive darling Elizabeth Warren interpret data? [Wright, compiling links]
• Let's put the Shirley Sherrod story in the proper context before it gets reinterpreted by the media. [Examiner]
• iPhone saves client from erroneous bench warrant. [iPhoneJD]

Full post as published by Point of Law on July 24, 2010 (boomark / email).