Litigation

The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) published a proposed rule in the Federal Register that, if adopted, will substantially alter the rights of those who would challenge a decision by the BIA to acquire land in trust for an Indian tribe.  Current BIA regulations require the secretary of the interior to publish a notice of a trust decision 30 days before actually transferring title.

Many businesses in Oklahoma have been impacted by the devastating tornado that hit that state on May 20, 2013.  Early estimates indicate the tornado caused upwards of $2 billion in damage.  Numerous national and local businesses and other entities, ranging from retailers to schools and hospitals, reported significant damage and an interruption in their business operations due to the tornado.

In a self-described “unexpected” ruling for the defendants in the consolidated LIBOR proceedings, Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald has dismissed the private plaintiffs’ antitrust and Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) claims and significantly narrowed the scope of the Commodity and Exchange Act (CEA) claim.

On Tuesday, on remand from the U.S. Supreme Court, the Ninth Circuit held that the certification requirements set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court for a multimillion plaintiff gender discrimination class action in Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011), applied equally to a 200-person class of newspaper employees with wage and hour claims.     

Earlier today, in a case titled Sell v. Sewell, (No. CV-12-0211-PR), the Arizona Supreme Court ruled that there is no implied private right of action for aiding and abetting securities fraud under the Arizona Securities Act (ASA).  Today’s ruling in Sell overturns the court’s ruling 34 years ago in State v. Superior Court, 599 P.2d 777 (Ariz. 1979), and continues the court’s strong policy of following the U.S. Supreme Court’s interpretations of analogous federal securities statutes.

A recent Washington Supreme Court case, Gandee v. LDL Freedom Enterprises, Inc., No. 87674-6 (Feb. 7, 2013), provides important insights into how Washington courts approach the enforceability of arbitration agreements in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s seminal decision in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, 131 S. Ct. 1740 (2011).