LATEST SUMMARIES

BANKRUPTCY LAW, CORP. GOVERNANCE, CORPORATION & ENTERPRISE LAW, ERISA, LABOR & EMPLOYMENT LAW, M&A
• Bender v. Xcel Energy, Inc.

CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE, EVIDENCE, PER CURIAM, SENTENCING
• US v. Phillips

CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE, SENTENCING
• US v. Coyle

LATEST SUMMARIES

BANKRUPTCY LAW, CORP. GOVERNANCE, CORPORATION & ENTERPRISE LAW, ERISA, LABOR & EMPLOYMENT LAW, M&A
Bender v. Xcel Energy, Inc., No. 06-2634
In an action brought by former executives who filed an ERISA action against the successor to their company's parent corporation claiming that it denied benefits due to them under certain plans, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) the district court properly concluded that plaintiffs were not participants in a 2000 Statement and therefore could not maintain their action against defendant for deferred compensation benefits; and 2) the district court properly concluded that substitute releases certain plaintiffs provided for purposes of participating in a Severance Plan did not satisfy their obligations under that plan, and thus their claims for stock benefits failed. Read more...

CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE, EVIDENCE, PER CURIAM, SENTENCING
US v. Phillips, No. 06-2798
A conviction and sentence for being a felon in possession of a firearm is affirmed over claims that: 1) a denial of a motion to suppress inculpatory statements during two police interviews conducted many hours after his arrest was proper as the district court properly rejected a claim that his waiver of Miranda rights was not knowing and intelligent because defendant was intoxicated from ecstasy and brandy consumed prior to his arrest; and 2) sentencing-related challenges are rejected. Read more...

CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE, SENTENCING
US v. Coyle, No. 06-2296, 06-2525
A sentence imposed on remand for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine is reversed and remanded where: 1) the circuit court declined to alter its previous holding that a substantial-assistance reduction from 135 months' to 36 months' imprisonment was unreasonable; and 2) the district court was not authorized to reduce defendant's sentence by 13.5 months based on post-offense rehabilitation. Read more...