|Opinion||Pub Date||Short Title/District|
|06a0427p.06||2006/11/20||USA v. Gale|
Southern District of Ohio at Columbus
|06a0428p.06||2006/11/20||Higgins v. Renico|
Eastern District of Michigan at Bay City
Conditional Habeas Corpus granted
|06a0429p.06||2006/11/20||USA v. Magouirk|
Eastern District of Tennessee at Winchester
|06a0430p.06||2006/11/21||USA v. Portela|
Eastern District of Tennessee at Greeneville
|06a0431p.06||2006/11/21||Vanguard Fire v. NLRB|
State of Michigan Agency
Labor Law: Withdrawing recognition
|06a0432p.06||2006/11/22||Ford v. Wilder|
Western District of Tennessee at Memphis
Elections: Jurisdiction and atty fees
Bank of New York v. Janowick
KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge. When an insurance company’s reorganization yields a pot of money that no one expected or even envisioned, who receives the proceeds? In short, that is the issue this case requires the court to resolve.
Bank of New York (“BNY”) filed this interpleader action to resolve conflicting claims to stock it received from Prudential Insurance Company of America’s demutualization, i.e., its reorganization from a mutual insurance company to a stock company. BNY received the stock as successor-in-interest to the former trustee of the National-Southwire Aluminum Company (“NSA”) Pension Plan (“NSA Plan” or “Plan”). The Plan terminated in 1986, and the trustee used the Plan’s assets to purchase two group annuity contracts, which satisfied the Plan’s ERISA obligations to the employees.
The claimants to the stock are a class of employees (“Employees”) of the now-defunct NSA (represented by Defendants-Appellants Janowick, Erwin, and Kannapel), Defendant-Appellee Southwire Company (“Southwire”) (the parent company of the former NSA), and Defendant-Appellant Century Aluminum Company (“Century”) (the purchaser of the former NSA’s assets). The district court addressed the claims in two phases, first concluding via summary judgment that Southwire’s claims were superior to those of the Employees, and next concluding that Southwire’s claims trumped Century’s. The Employees and Century both appeal.
Regarding the Employees’ appeal, we REVERSE the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Southwire, as we conclude that both Kentucky law and the nature of demutualization compel the conclusion that the Employees are entitled to the proceeds, and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. As to Century’s appeal, we VACATE the district court’s judgment and DISMISS Century’s appeal as moot, as we conclude that Century could not have purchased from Southwire that which Southwire never owned.
|06a0434p.06||2006/11/22||Scarbrough v. Morgan Cnty Bd Ed|
Eastern District of Tennessee at Knoxville
Specifically, he claims that when the Board enied him the position of Director of schools, it was retaliating against him for exercising his First Amendment freedoms and treating him differently than similarly situated applicants based only upon their animus toward homosexuals.