Search : DuPont
Number of summaries found: 50
Search For More Summaries
| Court: | U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals |
| Topic: | Civil Procedure, Dispute Resolution & Arbitration |
| Title: | Durant, Nichols, Houston, Hodgson, & Corteste-Costa, P.C. v. Dupont |
| Date: | 05/06/09 |
| Case Number: | 07-4514 |
| Summary: | In a dispute involving an arbitration award, appeal of district court judgment confirming arbitration award in favor of plaintiff is dismissed and the case remanded for determination of whether the district court had subject matter jurisdiction over the action, where additional submissions from the parties revealed that the existence of federal jurisdiction cannot be determined without the resolution of factual issues regarding the citizenship of the parties. |
| Court: | U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals |
| Topic: | Dispute Resolution & Arbitration, Labor & Employment Law |
| Title: | United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Mfg., Energy, Allied Indus. and Serv. Workers Local 4-5025 v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co. |
| Date: | 05/01/09 |
| Case Number: | 08-1873 |
| Summary: | In an action involving changes to an employee benefit plan, district court's order of arbitration is affirmed where the plaintiff's claim is that defendant's actions violated the collective bargaining agreement and not that defendant made an improper claim for eligibility under the terms of the plan, and thus the grievance falls within the terms of the collective bargaining agreement and the broad arbitration clause contained in Article X of the agreement. |
| Court: | U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals |
| Topic: | Bankruptcy Law, Commercial Law, Contracts, Government Law, Oil & Gas Law, Services |
| Title: | Nat'l Gas Distributors, LLC v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Co. |
| Date: | 02/11/09 |
| Case Number: | 072105 |
| Summary: | In claim brought by plaintiff-national gas distributor against defendants-three of plaintiff's customers to avoid numerous natural gas supply contracts entered into with the customers during the year before plaintiff's bankruptcy petition was filed, judgment in favor plaintiff is reversed and remanded where: 1) the grounds given by the bankruptcy court in finding that the contracts at issue were not swap agreements were not supported by the definition of "swap agreement" in 11 U.S.C. section 101(53B); 2) the bankruptcy court construed "commodity forward agreements" too narrowly; and 3) in defining a "commodity forward agreement", bankruptcy court is precluded from requiring that contract be traded in a market or on an exchange or that it not involve physical delivery of the commodity. |
| Court: | U.S. Supreme Court |
| Topic: | ERISA, Family Law, Labor & Employment Law |
| Title: | Kennedy v. Plan Admin. for DuPont Savings & Inv. Plan |
| Date: | 01/26/09 |
| Case Number: | 07-636 |
| Summary: | In an ERISA case involving the Act's limitation on assignment or alienation of benefits, and a divorced spouse's purported waiver of her entitlement to benefits, the Supreme Court rules in favor of ERISA plan administrator that had paid out benefits to former wife-designated beneficiary because: 1) although a waiver of the type at issue, i.e. a federal common law waiver embodied in a divorce decree that was not a qualified domestic relations order, is not rendered invalid by the text of the anti-alienation provision; nevertheless, 2) plan administrator properly disregarded the waiver due to its conflict with the beneficiary designation made by former husband in accordance with plan documents. |
| Court: | U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals |
| Topic: | Civil Procedure, Commercial Law, Contracts, Government Law, Injury And Tort Law |
| Title: | New England Surfaces v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours and Co. |
| Date: | 09/23/08 |
| Case Number: | 081048 |
| Summary: | In a suit involving tort claims for fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty and interference with contractual and prospective relations, dismissal of claims is affirmed in part and vacated in part where: 1) dismissal of plaintiff's state Franchise Act is reversed is vacated and remanded where the Act applies "only to franchise agreements...the performance of which contemplates or requires the franchisee to establish or maintain a place of business in [the state]"; and 2) district court properly ruled on summary judgment on plaintiff's other claims. |
| Court: | U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals |
| Topic: | ERISA, Labor & Employment Law, Manufacturing, Remedies |
| Title: | Pell v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., Inc. |
| Date: | 08/08/08 |
| Case Number: | 06-5006, 06-5088 |
| Summary: | In an employee's suit claiming that defendant underpaid his pension benefits, a ruling awarding relief under ERISA is affirmed, and rulings regarding remedies are reversed where: 1) plaintiff had standing to sue under ERISA; 2) plaintiff was entitled to equitable relief under ERISA based on an equitable estoppel theory; 3) an injunction requiring future higher payments was a form of equitable relief authorized by ERISA, and did not rewrite or informally amend the pension plan; 4) a constructive trust could be imposed on defendant's plan funds to obtain restitution; and 5) plaintiff's adjusted service date must be calculated with reference to defendant's misrepresentations as to the correct date. |
| Court: | U.S. Fed. Circuit Court of Appeals |
| Topic: | Intellectual Property, Patent, Remedies |
| Title: | E.I. Du Pont de Nemours and Co. v. MacDermid Printing Solutions, L.L.C. |
| Date: | 05/14/08 |
| Case Number: | 2007-1568 |
| Summary: | In a patent infringement case brought by DuPont, an order denying its motion for a preliminary injunction against defendant is vacated and the case remanded for further proceedings where the district court: 1) abused its discretion in finding that a substantial question as to validity existed because of uncertainty regarding the priority date; and 2) did not reach the parties' remaining arguments as to validity and enforceability as well as the remaining preliminary injunction factors. |
| Court: | U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals |
| Topic: | Contracts, Corporation & Enterprise Law, ERISA, Injury And Tort Law, Labor & Employment Law, M&A |
| Title: | E I Dupont de Nemours & Co. v. Sawyer |
| Date: | 02/15/08 |
| Case Number: | 06-20865, 07-40574 |
| Summary: | In an appeal arising out of a dispute between DuPont and former DuPont employees who allege that DuPont fraudulently induced them to terminate their employment and accept employment with a subsidiary that was later sold, an interlocutory order denying DuPont's motions to dismiss employees' state law claims and a dismissal of DuPont's declaratory judgment action are affirmed where: 1) employees' state-law claims are not preempted by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) or ERISA; and 2) the threatened suit that DuPont sought to defuse with a declaratory judgment was not an ERISA action, and thus there was no subject matter jurisdiction over DuPont's action. |
| Court: | U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals |
| Topic: | Civil Procedure, Corporation & Enterprise Law, Environmental Law, Government Law |
| Title: | E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co. v. US |
| Date: | 11/20/07 |
| Case Number: | 04-2096 |
| Summary: | On remand from the Supreme Court for reconsideration in an action brought by DuPont under CERCLA to recover from the U.S. a portion of certain hazardous waste cleanup costs it incurred, summary judgment for the government is reversed and remanded with respect to any claim made by DuPont for costs incurred while undertaking voluntary cleanup efforts where, pursuant to recent Supreme Court precedent, DuPont stated a viable cause of action for cost recovery under CERCLA section 107(a). |
| Court: | U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals |
| Topic: | Civil Procedure, Contracts, ERISA, Labor & Employment Law |
| Title: | Kennedy v. Plan Admin. for Dupont Savings & Inv. Plan |
| Date: | 08/15/07 |
| Case Number: | 05-41851 |
| Summary: | In an ERISA dispute, summary judgment awarding an estate benefits under a retirement plan is affirmed in part as to a denial of attorney's fees for the estate, but vacated in part as to the judgment as: 1) contrary to the findings below, ERISA's anti-alienation provision controls and the federal common-law waiver approach was inapplicable; and 2) thus, a divorce decree did not constitute a waiver of former wife's rights as a savings and investment plan beneficiary. |