The “Villain’s” Reply: Judge Posner Defends His Experiment in Chambers

The “Villain’s” Reply: Judge Posner Defends His Experiment in Chambers

We last wrote about Mitchell v. JCG Industries, No. 13-2115 (7th Cir. Mar. 18, 2014), in mid-March, when one judge on the panel (all suspected Judge Posner) confirmed his “intuition” that plaintiffs in a donning-and-doffing case overstated the time that it took to don certain articles of protective clothing by conducting an experiment in his chambers, recording and timing his clerks as they put on the same articles that the plaintiffs donned daily at their employer’s poultry-processing plant.

Seventh Circuit: ARRA Whistleblower Claim Failed Because Complaints Did Not Relate to “ARRA-Covered Funds”

Seventh Circuit:  ARRA Whistleblower Claim Failed Because Complaints Did Not Relate to “ARRA-Covered Funds”

A Seventh Circuit panel recently affirmed dismissal of a whistleblower claim under the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act of 2009 (“ARRA”) where the complaint did not state a claim (for Rule 12(b)(6) purposes) for misuse or mismanagement of ARR-covered funds.  Fuqua v. SVOX AG, Case No. 12-cv-1870 (7th Cir. May 16, 2014).

There’s No Such Thing As Scattershot Jurisdiction: Seventh Circuit Fends Off Wayward Pepperball Litigation

There’s No Such Thing As Scattershot Jurisdiction:  Seventh Circuit Fends Off Wayward Pepperball Litigation

A few months ago, we wrote about the Supreme Court’s decision in Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. ___, in which the Court stressed that for specific personal jurisdiction to exist, there must be a connection between the defendant and the locale arising from “contacts that the ‘defendant himself’ creates with the forum State.”

Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals Reverses District Court, Follows Trend of Applying Bankruptcy Code Safe Harbors Literally and Expansively

By | The Swap Report | May 5, 2014
Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals Reverses District Court, Follows Trend of Applying Bankruptcy Code Safe Harbors Literally and Expansively

On January 24, 2013, we reported that the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (the “District Court”) declined to apply a literal interpretation of the Bankruptcy Code safe harbor provision protecting “settlement payments” and transfers “in connection with a securities contract” from avoidance and, instead, relied upon equitable considerations to determine that cash distributions from an investment advisor or a future commission merchant to its customers from the proceeds of a sale of securities to a third-party buyer may be avoided in bankruptcy.