Commercial Division Blog
Arguments of Interest in the Court of Appeals for the Weeks of March 21 and 28, 2016
Upcoming arguments in the Court of Appeals of interest to commercial litigators:
- Case No. 54: Matter of Kenneth Cole Prods., Inc. Shareholder Litigation (to be argued Wednesday, March 23, 2016) ("Corporations--Merger--"Going-Private" Merger--Fairness to minority shareholders--Whether the entire fairness standard applies to going private mergers; Business judgment doctrine--Prediscovery dismissal--Whether the courts below correctly dismissed the complaint under the business judgment rule."). See the First Department's decision here and our blog post on the First Department decision here.
- Case No. 59: Viking Pump, Inc. v. TIG Insurance Company (to be argued Tuesday, March 29, 2016) ("Under New York law, is the proper method of allocation to be used all sums or pro rata when there are non-cumulation and prior insurance provisions? Given the Court's answer to the first question, under New York law and based on the policy language at issue here, when the underlying primary and umbrella insurance in the same policy period has been exhausted, does vertical or horizontal exhaustion apply to determine when a policyholder may access its excess insurance?"). See our blog post regarding that decision here.
- Case No. 38: Millennium Holdings LLC v. Glidden Company (to be argued Tuesday, March 29, 2016) ("Antisubrogation rule--Whether the courts below correctly held that the antisubrogation rule bars the insurers from recovering certain payments made to their insured, Millennium Holdings LLC, for the defense and indemnification of nonparty claims that resulted from lead-based paint exposure litigation.")
- Case No. 64: Jiannaras v. Alfant (to be argued Wednesday, March 30, 2016) ("Actions--Class Actions--Settlement purporting to extinguish rights of out-of-state class members to litigate damages claims without ability to opt-out--Whether Supreme Court abused its discretion in denying a motion to approve a settlement of the proposed action because it did not afford nonresident class members the opportunity to opt-out and pursue individual claims for damages--Application of Matter of Colt Indus. Shareholders Litig. (77 NY2d 185 ).") See the Second Department's decision here.