• BANKING LAWS

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS, FIRST CIRCUIT

Pilalas Vs. Cadle Company JV II LP (Decided on 12.09.2012)

Non-Grant of summary judgment for unlawful debt collection against Respondent Company and its corporate sibling - Appeal filed against an order of District Court whereby it dismissed grant of summary judgment against the Respondent Company and its corporate sibling for unlawful debt collection collectively

Held, Court observed that the present lawsuit was simply a back-door attack on and disregard of both the settlement and the release. Agreeing to pay a much reduced claim and granting a release to Respondent Company for any pre-release wrongful debt collection were the price Appellant chose to pay to forestall Respondent Company's own larger claim and achieve the dismissal of its lawsuit against the Appellant. It was too late now to resuscitate claims that ultimately depended on the wrongfulness of the original debt collection efforts. Whether any acceptance now of further payments by Respondent Company would get it in trouble with the attorney general under either the consent decree or the statute was not at issue nor was it certain how a Massachusetts court would react if Respondent Company sought to sue to collect further payments, which it had not sought to do. Hence, order passed by the District Judge was affirmed.

• ENVIRONMENT LAWS

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS, NINTH CIRCUIT

Pacific Coast Federation of Fisherman Associations Vs. Blank (Decided on 10.09.2012)

Adoption of changes to fishery management plan as Amendments 20 and 21 to the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan - Appellant Associations adopted changes to the fishery management plan for the trawl sector of the Pacific Coast ground fish fishery - Further such changes, adopted as Amendments 20 and 21 to the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan, are designed to increase economic efficiency through fleet consolidation, reduce environmental impacts, and simplify future decision making.

Held, Court found that the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) required National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to consider fishing communities in fashioning a limited access program, not to guarantee them a particular role in the program. The MSA also required NMFS to make fishing privileges available to those who substantially participated in a fishery, not to restrict such privileges to that group. NMFS satisfied these duties and complied with the MSA's national standard. As for National Environmental Policy Act(NEPA), NMFS appropriately studied Amendments 20 and 21 in separate environmental impact statements, considered an adequate range of alternatives, evaluated the Amendments' impacts on fish habitat and non-trawl communities, and considered and adopted appropriate mitigation measures. Hence, order passed by the lower Authority was affirmed.

• CONTRACT LAWS

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS, FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

Worldwide Polymers Inc Vs. Shinkong Synthetic Fibres Corporation (Decided on 14.09.2012)

Claim for money damages - Appeal filed against orders of District Court striking Plaintiff's expert report and claim for money damages after Plaintiff attempted to file its expert disclosures seven weeks late, and later granting defendant summary judgment.

Held, The District Court correctly concluded that Appellant did not suffer irreparable harm. There was no question that Appellant's injuries were compensable with money damages. Further, as a practical matter, nine years had passed between the filing of the complaint and today. After the passage of so much time, an injunction could not provide Plaintiff any useful relief. The record made clear that Appellant was in no hurry to litigate this action. Further, Appellant never sought a preliminary injunction or an expedited discovery schedule, nor did it take any action to move the case along quickly, as one might expect of a party allegedly suffering irreparable harm. There was simply no wrong here than an injunction could make right. Further, no opinion has been expressed on the remainder of the district court's analysis, and on remand the District Court was free to revisit the issue of summary judgment anew.