Court : US Supreme Court
United States v. Quality Stores, Inc. NOTE:Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co.,200 U.S. 321. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus UNITED STATES v. QUALITY STORES, INC., etal. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the sixth circuit No. 121408.Argued January 14, 2014Decided March 25, 2014 Respondent Quality Stores, Inc., and its affiliates (collectively Quality Stores) made severance payments to employees who were involuntarily terminated as part of Quality Stores Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Paymentswhich were made pursuant to plans that did not tie payments to the receipt of state unemployment insurancevaried based on job seniority and time served. Quality Store...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Lawson v. FMR LLC NOTE:Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co.,200 U.S. 321. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus LAWSON etal. v. FMR LLC etal. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the first circuit No. 123.Argued November 12, 2013Decided March 4, 2014 To safeguard investors in public companies and restore trust in the financial markets following the collapse of Enron Corporation, Congress passed the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. One of the Acts provisions protects whistleblowers; at the time relevant here, that provision instructed: No [public] company ..., or any ... contractor [or] subcontractor ... of such company, may discharge, demote, suspend, threaten, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Law v. Siegel NOTE:Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co.,200 U.S. 321. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus LAW v. SIEGEL, CHAPTER 7 TRUSTEE certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit No. 125196.Argued January 13, 2014Decided March 4, 2014 Petitioner Law filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy. He valued his California home at $363,348, claiming that $75,000 of that value was covered by Californias homestead exemption and thus was exempt from the bankruptcy estate. See11 U.S.C. 522(b)(3)(A). He also claimed that the sum of two voluntary liensone of which was in favor of Lins Mortgage & Associatesexceeded the homes nonexempt value, leaving no equity r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Daimler AG v. Bauman NOTE:Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co.,200 U.S. 321. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus DAIMLER AG v. BAUMAN etal. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit No. 11965.Argued October 15, 2013Decided January 14, 2014 Plaintiffs (respondents here) are twenty-two residents of Argentina who filed suit in California Federal District Court, naming as a defendant DaimlerChrysler Aktiengesellschaft (Daimler), a German public stock company that is the predecessor to petitioner Daimler AG. Their complaint alleges that Mercedes-Benz Argentina (MB Argentina), an Argentinian subsidiary of Daimler, collaborated with state security f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : UK Supreme Court
Lord Neuberger (with whom Lord Mance, Lord Clarke and Lord Toulson agree) Introductory 1. These two appeals raise questions of some significance arising out of the interrelationship of the statutory schemes relating to the protection of employees' pensions and to corporate insolvency. 2. The background to the two appeals is, in very summary terms, as follows: i. Many UK registered members of the Lehman group of companies, and all the UK registered members of the Nortel group of companies, have gone into insolvent administration; ii. (a) One of those Lehman group companies entered into service contracts with, and ran a pension scheme for the benefit of, employees who worked for other group members; (b) The Nortel group included a company which had a pension scheme, and which was insufficiently resourced to fund that scheme; iii. The pension scheme ("the Scheme") in each case was a final salary scheme, which appears to be, and to have been for some time, in substantial deficit; iv. The P...
Tag this Judgment!Court : UK Supreme Court
LORD HOPE (with whom Lord Kerr, Lord Wilson, Lord Reed and Lord Toulson agree) 1. This is an appeal from an interlocutor of the Second Division of the Court of Session (Lord Justice Clerk Gill, Lord Osborne and Lord Nimmo Smith) of 15 March 2012 allowing an appeal under section 88(1) of the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 2003 from a decision of the Scottish Land Court: [2012] CSIH 26, 2012 SLT 633. Section 88(3) of the 2003 Act provides that the decision of the Court of Session in any appeal made to it under section 88(1) is final. But, as the Lord Justice Clerk explained in para 1 of his opinion, the issues in the appeal to that court included the question whether section 72 of the 2003 Act was compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. 2. Section 29(1) of the Scotland Act 1998 provides that an Act of the Scottish Parliament is not law in so far as any provision of the Act is outside the legislative competence of the Parliament. Section 29(2)(d) provides that a pro...
Tag this Judgment!Court : UK Supreme Court
LORD HOPE (with whom Lord Walker, Lord Kerr, Lord Reed and Lord Carnwath agree) 1. Iceland is one of the most productive countries per capita in the world. It ranks high in economic and political stability. But the global financial crisis of 2008 exposed its dependence on the banking sector, and in the autumn of that year the nation's entire banking system failed. The dispute which has given rise to this appeal is one of the products of that crisis. It has its origin too in the fact that Iceland is a party, as are all the Member States of the European Union, to the Agreement on the European Economic Area ("the EEA Agreement") which was established on 1 January 1994. 2. On 6 December 2002 Annex IX (Financial Services) to the EEA Agreement was amended by the incorporation of Directive 2001/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 April 2001 on the reorganisation and winding-up of credit institutions ("the Directive"). Landsbanki Islands hf ("Landsbanki") and its wholly ow...
Tag this Judgment!Court : UK Supreme Court
LORD REED 1. In this application under paragraph 2 of Schedule 2 to the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 ("the 1984 Act"), Mr Walton challenges the validity of schemes and orders made by the Scottish Ministers under that Act to allow the construction of a new road network in the vicinity of Aberdeen. The basis on which the schemes and orders are challenged, as ultimately argued before this court, is that the Ministers have failed to comply with the requirements of the Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive (Directive 2001/42/EC, OJ 2001 L197/30) ("the SEA Directive"), or in any event with common law requirements of fairness. In the light of observations made by the Extra Division of the Inner House of the Court of Session (Walton v Scottish Ministers [2012] CSIH 19), it will also be necessary to consider questions relating to remedies. These include the question whether, even if a failure to comply with the directive were established in the present case, Mr Walton should in any event be...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians v. Patchak NOTE:Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U.S. 321. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus MATCH-E-BE-NASH-SHE-WISH BAND OF POTTAWATOMI INDIANS v. PATCHAK etal. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the district of columbia circuit No. 11246.Argued April 24, 2012Decided June 18, 2012[ 1 ] The Indian Reorganization Act (IRA) authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to acquire property for the purpose of providing land to Indians. 25 U.S.C. 465. Petitioner Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians (Band), an Indian tribe federally recognized in 1999, requested that the Secretary...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Hall v. United States NOTE:Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U.S. 321. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus HALL et ux. v. UNITED STATES certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit No. 10875.Argued November 29, 2011Decided May 14, 2012 Chapter 12 of the Bankruptcy Code allows farmer debtors with regular annual income to adjust their debts subject to a reorganization plan. The plan must provide for full payment of priority claims. 11 U.S.C. 1222(a)(2). Under 1222(a)(2)(A), however, certain governmental claims arising from the disposition of farm assets are stripped of priority status and downgraded to general, unsecured claims that are ...
Tag this Judgment!