Skip to main content
Home
Home

Search

7705 results
Reset
INSIGHT BLOG

Court Grants in Part Motion to Dismiss EJC Soda Case

Swearingen v. Santa Cruz Natural, Inc., No. 3:13-cv-04291 (N.D. Cal.): The Court issued an order granting in part and denying in part Defendant's motion to dismiss. The order dismissed with prejudice Plaintiff's claims asserting violations of California's CLRA, FAL, and UCL, as well as its claims for breach of express warranty, breach of implied wa...

INSIGHT BLOG

Court Grants Summary Judgment for Tea Company

Victor v. R.C. Bigelow, Inc., No. 3:13-cv-2976 (N.D. Cal.) and Khasin v. R.C. Bigelow Inc., No. 3:12-cv-2204 (N.D. Cal.): United States District Judge William H. Orrick granted Defendant's motion for summary judgment, disposing of this putative class action asserting violations of California's UCL, CLRA, and FAL, and raising a claim for unjust enri...

INSIGHT PUBLICATION

Inter Partes Review Proceedings: A Fourth Anniversary Report

Perkins Coie is marking the fourth anniversary of inter partes review (IPR) with a report focused on the changes and progress of IPR proceedings, particularly since September 2015.

INSIGHT BLOG

Update for September 1 Fund Subscriptions: New “Qualified Client” Standard

Effective August 15, 2016 for SEC-registered investment advisers, most funds or separate accounts that are subject to a performance fee or allocation need to raise their "qualified client" net worth threshold for new investors, new investments from existing investors, or new separate account agreements, from $2 million to $2.1 million.  Other ...

INSIGHT BLOG

California Supreme Court Reforms Precondemnation Entry and Testing Statutes to Allow for Jury Determination of Damages

In Property Reserve v. Superior Court, S217738 (Cal. Supreme Court, July 21, 2016) the Supreme Court of California held that the precondemnation entry and testing statutes are constitutional when reformed to permit affected property owners the right to have a jury determine damages. The California Department of Water Resources sought a court order ...

INSIGHT BLOG

New Filings For August 29, 2016

Berni, et al. v. Barilla S.P.A., et al¸ No. 1:16-cv-4196 (E.D.N.Y.): Putative class action asserting a violation of New York GBL 349 and raising a claim of unjust enrichment, based on the claim that Defendants misleadingly market their "Whole Grain" and "Protein Plus" varieties of pasta by packaging them in boxes that are the same size as "re...

INSIGHT BLOG

Form ADV Amendments: Relying Advisers in Focus

Currently, many investment advisory firms indicate to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) on their Form ADV filings that they have "relying advisers."  With the SEC's adoption on August 25, 2016, of amendments to Form ADV, the landscape for related advisers has changed substantially under a new "umbrella registration" regime. For exa...

INSIGHT BLOG

Final Approval of Settlement in Tortilla Trans Fat Suit

Guttmann v. Ole Mexican Foods, Inc., No. 3:14-cv-4845 (N.D. Cal.): The Court granted final approval of class settlement in this putative class action alleging a breach of express warranty claim and violations of California's CLRA, UCL, and FAL, based on Defendant's failure to disclose that its "Xtreme Wellness" line of tortillas contain partially-h...

INSIGHT BLOG

Neighbors’ Personal Stake In Preserving Local Parking Regulations Precluded Finding Of Public Interest

Neighbors who were suing to maintain existing neighborhood parking regulations were pursuing their own personal interests and did not qualify for the public interest exception from the anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) statute. Because their Brown Act claim had no merit, it was properly dismissed as an anti-SLAPP suit. Cru...

INSIGHT BLOG

More Sanctions from Private Equity Fees: W.L. Ross

Shortly after my post on the SEC's recent settlement with Apollo Global Management went up, the SEC released a settlement with another private equity fund manager: W.L. Ross & Co. LLC ("WLR"). Like the Apollo case, the SEC sanctioned WLR for failing to fully disclose how it was collecting its fees. But WLR paid a lower penalty than Apollo, perhaps ...

Home
Jump back to top