Westlaw Journals weekly round-up

October 22, 2014

Westlaw Journals Weekly RoundupSome highlights from the past week’s litigation news headlines over at the Westlaw Journals blog include a judge’s ruling that insurers owe no coverage for a lawsuit against their policyholder over stolen trade secrets; investor not bananas about Chiquita Brands buyout; and the 11th Circuit affirms woman’s 33-year prison sentence for fraud:

Stolen trade secrets not covered by insurers’ policies, judge rules: Two insurers had no duty to defend an Illinois cellular technology company against a suit alleging it stole trade secrets because their policies did not cover damage from theft of intellectual property, a federal judge has ruled. On Sept. 30 U.S. District Judge John J. Tharp Jr. of the Northern District of Illinois granted the insurers summary judgment, saying one policy specifically excluded any losses from misappropriation of trade secrets and the other policy’s terms did not cover loss of intellectual property.  (Insurance Coverage)

Investor not bananas about Chiquita Brands buyout: Directors of Chiquita Brands International Inc. allegedly breached their fiduciary duties to the company’s stockholders by agreeing to merge with Ireland’s Fyffes PLC at an unfair price when a higher, competing bid was on the table, an Oct. 7 lawsuit alleges. The City of Birmingham Firemen’s and Policemen’s Supplemental Pension System, a Chiquita shareholder, alleges the directors rushed negotiations with Fyffes because they were assured continued employment that was not guaranteed with the competing offer.  (Mergers & Acquisitions)

11th Circuit affirms woman’s 33-year prison sentence for fraud: Thirty-three years in prison is a reasonable sentence for a Miami woman guilty of organizing a multimillion-dollar fraud scheme with her husband, a panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled. Marian Morgan’s sentence was substantively reasonable under the “totality of the circumstances” view required by Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007), and the factors outlined in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), including the need to protect the public, the panel said in an Oct. 6 opinion.  (White-Collar Crime)