The Seventh Circuit today upheld a Rule 54(b) judgment in favor of a supervising appraiser whose apprentice knowingly issued false real estate appraisals.  The appraisals facilitated a scam in which the fraudster-in-chief pocketed loan proceeds far in excess of the purchase price for the realty.  The plaintiffs, who borrowed the money in hopes of repaying the loans with rent from the properties, sued the supervisor (and others).  The district court held, under Indiana law, that appraisers don’t owe a duty of accuracy to borrowers (only lenders).  The court also found no evidence that the supervisor committed fraud — that she knew about the falsity of the appraisals on which she signed off.  The Seventh Circuit affirmed in an opinion that indulges a judicial penchant for raconteurship at the expense of clarity.  Decatur Ventures, LLC v. Daniel, No. 06-3441 (7th Cir. May 4, 2007).

Barry Barnett

Let’s make it pellucid — you can get our feed for free.

Today, the Sixth Circuit affirmed a jury award of $9,282,188 to TRW for Micrel’s breach of a contract to supply application-specific integrated circuits (ASICs).  TRW planned to use the ASICs as replacement parts in automobile air bags.  Micrel argued that the district court erred in throwing out its fraudulent inducement claim and in allowing the jury to award both "cover" damages under the Ohio Uniform Commercial Code and "expectancy" damages under Ohio common law.  The Sixth Circuit held that Micrel presented no evidence that TRW misrepresented its intentions and that Ohio law permitted recovery of both cover damages (difference between contract price and price for substitute goods from alternative source) and expectancy damages (basically loss of profits).  Micrel, Inc. v. TRW, Inc., No. 06-3177 (6th Cir. May 4, 2007).

Barry Barnett

Free feed Friday!

Blawgletter has given fellow Texan* Alberto Gonzalez a rough go.  Lookie, e.g., here, here, here, and here.  Perhaps we should leave the poor guy alone.  Perhaps.

But we couldn’t resist letting y’all know about a NYT op-ed item that calls for the forcible ouster of General Gonzalez from his perch as the symbol of everything good and right with the rule of law and the legal profession.  See it here.

Blawgletter furnishes the links.  You decide.

Barry Barnett

Link up with our free feed.

* Under the traditional definition, genuine Texanosity requires birth within one of the 254 counties comprising the Lone Star State.  Connecticut doesn’t count.

U.S. District Judge John Padova, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, yesterday granted a motion to certify a class of Philadelphia-area cable subscribers.  The decision allows the class to prosecute antitrust claims against Comcast for allocating cable markets with competitors and attempting to monopolize the Philadelphia market for cable subscribers.  Behrend v. Comcast Corp., No. 03-6604 (E.D. Pa. May 2, 2007).  See the court’s 35-page Memorandum and its class certification Order here.

The litigation before the court also involves similar claims on behalf of cable subscribers in Comcast’s Boston and Chicago clusters.  Blawgletter’s firm serves as co-lead counsel for the plaintiffs.

Barry Barnett

We charge a fair price for subscribing to our feed — free.

The Fair Credit Reporting Act requires credit reporting agencies to explain "clearly and accurately" how to read a consumer’s credit report.  The Seventh Circuit held today that Equifax failed to carry its burden to show, as a matter of law, that it satisfied the requirement.  The case involved potential confusion resulting from Equifax’s "Date of Last Activity" on its credit reports.  The Date of Last Activity field, the court concluded, didn’t "clearly" allow consumers to determine whether Equifax observed the 7.5 year cut-off for reporting of negative credit history information.  Gillespie v. Equifax Information Services, L.L.C., No. 06-1952 (7th Cir. May 3, 2007).

Sounds confusing to Blawgletter.

Barry Barnett

No confusion here — we offer our feed free.

Blawgletter likes to gripe about the Antitrust Division’s lately lackadaisical record of bringing new price-fixing cases.  Just yesterday, we again taunted the AD.  Little did we know that at that very moment law enforcement officers sprang into action, hauling a bunch of price-fixing execs to the pokey.  Press release here.

The conspiracy?  To fix prices on "marine hose" — thick, flexible tubes that transport petroleum to or from tankers, storage facilities, buoys, and the like.  See a search warrant affidavit and criminal complaint here.  Go get ’em!

Barry Barnett

We fix our feed’s price at zero.

Blawgletter fancies that not many world class law firms feature a nude dude in their newsletters. 

But we know of one exception — Susman Godfrey L.L.P. 

And we know about it because we did it.  Check it out here.

Barry Barnett

Receive our unconventional free feed here.

The Third Circuit today affirmed summary judgment against former AT&T employees who missed out on the chance to earn more pension benefits after AT&T sold the business unit for which they worked.  AT&T agreed in the sale not to rehire the business unit’s employees for eight months.  The agreement prevented the employees from retaining pension credit for prior service if they rejoined an AT&T company within six months.  The employees complained that the interference with their opportunity to "bridge" previous AT&T employment with future AT&T employment violated ERISA.

The Third Circuit agreed with the district court’s conclusion that the employees had no claim under ERISA.  Section 501(a)(1) of ERISA, the court held, requires violation of the pension plan’s terms, but the employees didn’t assert that interference with their potential bridging rights actually conflicted with any plan terms.  Nor did section 501(a)(3) help them.  The employees wanted money (to replace the pension benefits that they could have earned), but section 501(a)(3) permits only "equitable" relief.  Eichorn v. AT&T Corp., No. 05-5461 (3d Cir. May 2, 2007).

Barry Barnett

You’ve already earned our free feed.