U.S. Supreme Court Denial of Cert Leaves Statute Vague
This article analyzes the confusion faced by commodity futures traders in assessing whether their trading strategies constitute illegal spoofing and examines whether the CFTC and Seventh Circuit have provided sufficient guidance on the distinction between spoofing and legitimate trading activity.
Part Two of a Two-Part Article
In Part One, we discussed the public concern over unfairness in asset forfeiture and analyzed the Supreme Court case — United States v. Bajakajian — that looked to the Excessive Fines Clause to limit the government's authority to forfeit property. In Part Two, we consider possible reforms that would allow defendants to challenge forfeitures as disproportionate under a fairer and more appropriate analysis.
The justices in Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association found the 1992 Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act infringed on state sovereignty. The decision could transform sports and sports gambling from coast to coast.
Part One of a Two-Part Article
In Honeycutt v. United States, the Supreme Court rejected the argument that a federal criminal forfeiture statute permits joint and several liability for criminal asset forfeiture judgments, thereby protecting defendants who were only marginally culpable for a larger offense.
Ultimately, Village at Lakeridge is noteworthy for what the Supreme Court did not decide. In granting certiorari, the Supreme Court declined to address whether the lower courts' various “non-statutory insider” tests should be refined. As concurrences from Justices Sotomayor and Kennedy emphasized, though, that issue is ripe for increased scrutiny.
With its decision in Digital Realty v. Somers, the U.S. Supreme Court dealt a blow to companies interested in learning of their own securities violations before the government gets the heads-up. The case's outcome means whistleblowers who might have reported violations internally will be incentivized to bypass their own companies' compliance mechanisms in favor of immediate reporting to the SEC.
The Supreme Court's decision and analysis are instructive for both bankruptcy and corporate practitioners, and will likely yield significant returns for estate beneficiaries.
CareFirst, a large health care company involved in a data breach case, asked the U.S. Supreme Court to weigh in on whether victims can establish Article III standing to sue for the risk of future identity theft. The Court denied the request, leaving intact a recent district court holding that consumers could successfully plead such a claim issue — and leaving a split among the federal appellate courts.
The U.S. Supreme Court recently agreed to consider whether a patentee may recover foreign lost profits resulting from infringement of a United States patent.
This article examines the impact of TC Heartland with a focus on recent Federal Circuit decisions applying TC Heartland and further clarifying the scope of where patent cases may be filed.
