On February 26, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Intel Corporation Investment Policy Committee v. Sulyma, holding that, for purposes of ERISA’s three-year statute of limitations, a plan beneficiary does not have “actual...more
2/28/2020
/ Actual or Constructive Knowledge ,
Appeals ,
Breach of Duty ,
Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) ,
Fiduciary Duty ,
Intel Corp. Investment Policy Committee v. Sulyma ,
Material Disclosures ,
Question of Fact ,
Reaffirmation ,
Retirement Plan ,
Retirement Plan Beneficiaries ,
Reversal ,
SCOTUS ,
Split of Authority ,
Statute of Limitations ,
Summary Judgment
On June 3, 2019, the Supreme Court decided Taggart v. Lorenzen, No. 18-489, holding that a court may hold a creditor in civil contempt for violating a bankruptcy court’s discharge order as long as there is “no fair ground of...more
6/5/2019
/ Appeals ,
Attorney's Fees ,
Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (BAP) ,
Bankruptcy Code § 524(a) ,
Bankruptcy Discharge Order ,
Chapter 7 ,
Civil Contempt Orders ,
Concurrent Litigation ,
Creditors ,
Dischargeable Debts ,
Injunctive Relief ,
Money Judgment ,
Reasonable Belief Test ,
Remand ,
Reversal ,
SCOTUS ,
Standard of Review ,
Statutory Violations ,
Taggart v Lorenzen ,
Vacated
On May 13, 2019, the Supreme Court decided Apple Inc. v. Pepper, No. 17-204, holding that iPhone owners who purchase apps from Apple’s App Store are “direct purchasers” from Apple and may sue Apple for alleged monopolization...more
5/14/2019
/ Antitrust Violations ,
Appeals ,
Apple Inc v Pepper ,
Class Action ,
Direct Purchasers ,
Dismissals ,
Internet Retailers ,
iPhone ,
Mobile Apps ,
Monopolization ,
Reversal ,
SCOTUS