Search : AT&T
Number of summaries found: 88
Search For More Summaries
| Court: | U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals |
| Topic: | Civil Procedure, Class Actions, Commercial Law, Communications Law, Consumer Products, Consumer Protection Law, Dispute Resolution & Arbitration |
| Title: | Laster v. AT&T Mobility LLC |
| Date: | 10/28/09 |
| Case Number: | 08-56394 |
| Summary: | In a class action claiming that a telephone company's offer of a "free" phone to anyone who signed up for its service was fraudulent to the extent the phone company charged the new subscriber sales tax on the retail value of each "free" phone, denial of defendant's motion to compel arbitration is affirmed where an arbitration clause's "premium" payment in the event of an arbitral award in favor of a customer did not prevent the clause from being unenforceable under California law. |
| Court: | California Appellate Districts |
| Topic: | Civil Procedure, Class Actions, Communications Law, Consumer Products, Consumer Protection Law, False Advertising |
| Title: | Morgan v. AT&T Wireless Servs., Inc. |
| Date: | 09/23/09 |
| Case Number: | B206788 |
| Summary: | In a consumer class action against defendant AT&T Wireless Services (AT&T) based on its marketing and sale of premium cell phones that operated on a wireless network that AT&T allegedly modified in a manner that rendered those premium cell phones essentially useless, trial court's ruling against plaintiffs is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) trial court erred by sustaining AT&T's demurrer to plaintiffs' cause of action as there are sufficient facts alleged to show both a violation of the Unfair Competition Law (UCL) and plaintiffs have standing to bring this claim; 2) trial court did not err by sustaining the demurrer to the False Advertising Law (FAL) cause of action as plaintiffs failed to establish that they lost money or property as a result of AT&T's offer; 3) trial court erred by sustaining the demurrer for failure to comply the Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) notice requirements; and 4) plaintiffs alleged their fraud claim with sufficient specificity. |
| Court: | U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals |
| Topic: | Administrative Law, Antitrust & Trade Regulation, Communications Law, Consumer Protection Law, Government Law |
| Title: | AT&T Inc. v. FCC |
| Date: | 09/22/09 |
| Case Number: | 08-4024 |
| Summary: | Petition for review of a decision rejecting AT&T's claim that the FCC could not lawfully release documents pursuant to the Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) obtained during the course of an investigation into an alleged overcharging, on the ground that disclosure would likely invade the company's "personal privacy", is granted as the FOIA's text unambiguously indicated that a corporation may have a "personal privacy" interest within the meaning of Exemption 7(C). Thus, the matter is remanded to the FCC with instructions to determine, in accordance with the court's construction of Exemption 7(C), whether disclosure could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy section 553(b)(7)(c). |
| Court: | U.S. Supreme Court |
| Topic: | Labor & Employment Law |
| Title: | AT&T Corp. v. Hulteen |
| Date: | 05/18/09 |
| Case Number: | 07-543 |
| Summary: | In a Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) challenge to Defendant's pension calculation system, summary judgment for Plaintiff is reversed where an employer does not necessarily violate the PDA when it pays pension benefits calculated in part under an accrual rule, applied only pre-PDA, that gave less retirement credit for pregnancy than for medical leave generally. Because the pension payments accord with a bona fide seniority system's terms, they are insulated from challenge under Title VII section 703(h). |
| Court: | Supreme Court of Delaware |
| Topic: | Corporation & Enterprise Law, Securities Law |
| Title: | AT&T Corp. v. Lillis |
| Date: | 03/09/09 |
| Case Number: | 490,2007 |
| Summary: | In an action by former officers and directors of MediaOne seeking compensation from AT&T for the full value of their options, trial court's original judgment is affirmed, where the disputed term "economic position" in Section XVIII.A of the 1994 stock option plan means the full economic value of the options, including the intrinsic value and time value. |
| Court: | Supreme Court of Delaware |
| Topic: | Corporation & Enterprise Law, Securities Law |
| Title: | AT&T Corp. v. Lillis |
| Date: | 03/09/09 |
| Case Number: | 490,2007 |
| Summary: | In an action by former officers and directors of MediaOne seeking compensation from AT&T for the full value of their options, trial court's original judgment is affirmed, where the disputed term "economic position" in Section XVIII.A of the 1994 stock option plan means the full economic value of the options, including the intrinsic value and time value. |
| Court: | U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals |
| Topic: | ERISA |
| Title: | Chastain v. AT&T |
| Date: | 03/09/09 |
| Case Number: | 07-6288 |
| Summary: | In an ERISA action to recover retirement benefits, summary judgment for Defendants is affirmed where Plaintiffs did not have standing because they were no longer participants in Defendants' benefits plan. |
| Court: | U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals |
| Topic: | Civil Procedure, Class Actions, Communications Law, Debt Collection |
| Title: | Palisades Collections LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC |
| Date: | 12/16/08 |
| Case Number: | 08-2188 |
| Summary: | Neither the general removal statute at 28 U.S.C.A. section 1441(a) nor the class-action removal provisions of 28 U.S.C.A. section 1453(b) permits a counter-defendant to remove a class action counterclaim to federal court. |
| Court: | Supreme Court of Delaware |
| Topic: | Corporation & Enterprise Law, Securities Law |
| Title: | AT&T Corp. v. Lillis |
| Date: | 05/22/08 |
| Case Number: | 490,2007, 459,2007 |
| Summary: | In a suit seeking compensation for lost "time value" of stock options after plaintiffs were cashed out in a merger, judgment for the appellees is remanded where: 1) the chancellor did not address the distinction between a cash out merger and a stock for stock merger and the significance of that distinction in evaluating extrinsic evidence of contractual intent; and 2) the chancellor correctly concluded that appellant's admissions were conclusion of law and not binding. |
| Court: | Supreme Court of Delaware |
| Topic: | Contracts, Corp. Governance, Corporation & Enterprise Law, Evidence, Labor & Employment Law |
| Title: | Lillis v. AT&T Corp. |
| Date: | 05/22/08 |
| Case Number: | 490, 2007 |
| Summary: | In an action wherein plaintiffs, former directors and officers of a corporation acquired by a stock-for-stock merger in 1999 who owned a 1994 stock option plan which preserved the option holders' "economic position" upon the happening of specified events including a merger, sought compensation for stock options which were cashed out in a 2004 merger, judgment below is remanded where: 1) in resolving the ambiguity of the term "economic position", the court below failed to address the difference between a cash-out merger and a stock-for-stock merger; 2) the court below did not fully address the significance of the "cash election" at issue here in deciding what the contracting parties intended by their use of the term "economic position"; and 3) the lower court should not have given any evidentiary weight to supposed admissions which did not relate to the interpretation of the 1994 stock option plan. |