Expand the following panels for additional search options.

Harrison v. Envision Mgmt. Holding, Inc.

The U.S. District Court (Colorado) denied a motion to compel arbitration the defendants brought in a case the plaintiff participants brought (a purported class action) in an ESOP the defendant company, et al. established. “The Plaintiff argues that the Defendants’ actions related to the sale caused him and all other ESOP participants to suffer significant losses to their ESOP retirement savings.” The court denied the motion.

U.S. District Court Denies Motion of Defendants in an ESOP Case to Compel Plaintiff Into Arbitration

The U.S. District Court (Colorado) denied a motion to compel arbitration the defendants brought in a case the plaintiff participants brought (a purported class action) in an ESOP the defendant company, et al. established. “The Plaintiff argues that the Defendants’ actions related to the sale caused him and all other ESOP participants to suffer significant losses to their ESOP retirement savings.” The court denied the motion.

Equity Planning Corp. v. Westfield Ins. Co.

In this business interruption case resulting from mandatory restrictions to control COVID-19, the court grants a motion to dismiss claims of the plaintiff. The plaintiff’s arguments that it suffered physical loss or damage to its properties did not sway the court. Nor did its arguments that the civil authority provisions and virus exclusion in the policy were not applicable to deny its claims.

Court Grants Insurance Company’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint That It Suffered Covered Loss of Income Due to COVID-19 Restrictions

In this business interruption case resulting from mandatory restrictions to control COVID-19, the court grants a motion to dismiss claims of the plaintiff. The plaintiff’s arguments that it suffered physical loss or damage to its properties did not sway the court. Nor did its arguments that the civil authority provisions and virus exclusion in the policy were not applicable to deny its claims.

Brunswick Panini’s v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co.

In this business interruption case resulting from mandatory shutdowns to control COVID-19, the court granted defendant insurer’s motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claims. The court found the plaintiffs, which operated restaurant and bar facilities in Ohio but had to suspend operations because of the pandemic, did not meet the precondition of “direct physical loss of or damage to” the covered property requirement. Further, the microorganism exclusion precluded coverage of losses.

Court Rejects Plaintiffs’ Argument That Policy Covered Loss of Full Use of Premises Due to COVID-19-Related Shutdowns and Grants Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss

In this business interruption case resulting from mandatory shutdowns to control COVID-19, the court granted defendant insurer’s motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claims. The court found the plaintiffs, which operated restaurant and bar facilities in Ohio but had to suspend operations because of the pandemic, did not meet the precondition of “direct physical loss of or damage to” the covered property requirement. Further, the microorganism exclusion precluded coverage of losses.

Court Dismisses Plaintiff’s COVID-19-Related Suit, Noting Claimed Loss of Use of Properties Is Not Direct Physical Loss Under the Relevant Policy

In this business interruption case resulting from mandatory shutdowns to control COVID-19, a federal court granted the defendant insurer’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s suit over coverage, finding plaintiff’s claim for loss of income based on state orders restricting use does not meet “direct physical loss” prerequisite.

Torgerson Props. v. Cont’l Cas. Co.

In this business interruption case resulting from mandatory shutdowns to control COVID-19, a federal court granted the defendant insurer’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s suit over coverage, finding plaintiff’s claim for loss of income based on state orders restricting use does not meet “direct physical loss” prerequisite.

Protégé Rest. Partners LLC v. Sentinel Ins. Co.

In this business interruption case resulting from mandatory shutdowns to control COVID-19, the court says the plaintiff, a California restaurant, failed to state plausible claims to relief but gives plaintiff an opportunity to amend its complaint, even if “it does not seem likely” the plaintiff will be able to overcome the complaint’s deficiencies.

Court Says Plaintiff Fails to State Plausible Claim to Relief for COVID-19-Related Losses but Allows Amendment of Complaint

In this business interruption case resulting from mandatory shutdowns to control COVID-19, the court says the plaintiff, a California restaurant, failed to state plausible claims to relief but gives plaintiff an opportunity to amend its complaint, even if “it does not seem likely” the plaintiff will be able to overcome the complaint’s deficiencies.

2nd Circuit Chafes at Wholesale Exclusion of Loss Causation Testimony

Second Circuit says district court “went astray” when, under Daubert, it excluded entire loss causation and damages testimony of plaintiffs’ expert instead of just eliminating unreliable part; appeals court ruling revives securities fraud class action.

Showers v. Pfizer, Inc. (In re Pfizer Inc. Sec. Litig.)

Second Circuit says district court “went astray” when, under Daubert, it excluded entire loss causation and damages testimony of plaintiffs’ expert instead of just eliminating unreliable part; appeals court ruling revives securities fraud class action.

7th Circuit Proposes Solution for Loss Causation Conundrum

7th Circuit agrees with defendants that plaintiff expert’s leakage loss-causation model failed to account for firm-specific, nonfraud factors that could have affected stock price movement and orders new trial applying court’s burden-shifting approach.

Glickenhaus & Co. v. Household International, Inc.

7th Circuit agrees with defendants that plaintiff expert’s leakage loss-causation model failed to account for firm-specific, nonfraud factors that could have affected stock price movement and orders new trial applying court’s burden-shifting approach.

Court, Not Expert, Misses Mark on Loss Causation

Appellate court finds district court erred in excluding expert testimony on loss causation and damages in non-typical § 10(b) securities fraud case under Rule 702, because proof as to both elements under this scenario is less “complex”; the expert only ha ...

Pure Earth, Inc. v. Call

Appellate court finds district court erred in excluding expert testimony on loss causation and damages in non-typical § 10(b) securities fraud case under Rule 702, because proof as to both elements under this scenario is less “complex”; the expert only ha ...

16 results