Westlaw Journals weekly round-up

March 5, 2015

Westlaw Journals Weekly RoundupSome highlights from recent litigation news headlines over at the Westlaw Journal blog include a commentary on the Environmental Protection Agency’s final rule regulated coal ash generated from power plans and the U.S. Supreme Court hears argument over attorney fee dispute:

Supreme Court hears argument over attorney fee dispute: The U.S. Supreme Court heard argument Feb. 25 over whether Asarco LLC must pay the law firm Baker Botts $5 million for defending its initial claim for attorney fees after representing the mining company in Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The law firm may be in for “some tough sledding” in trying to recover the fees for defending its fee application, said bankruptcy attorney Michael Fletcher of Frandzel Robins Bloom & Csato, who is not involved in the case. (Bankruptcy)

New York high court weighs in on $300 million ruling in swap dispute: On Feb. 19, the New York Court of Appeals sent a dispute between a bank and a hedge fund over swap agreements back to a trial court because fact questions exist as to which party defaulted under the agreements’ terms. A state appellate panel previously held that Barclays Bank owed BDC Finance Ltd. nearly $300 million in collateral for several swaps after the bank failed to make timely payment on a collateral call. (Derivatives)

EPA gets dirty regulating coal ash and then defers a critical issue: Jad Davis of Kutak Rock LLP discusses the Environmental Protection Agency’s final rule regulating coal ash generated from power plants and what it means for the energy industry. (Environmental)

Plaintiffs in $10 billion Illinois light-cigarette case seek judge’s ouster: Plaintiffs in a 14-year-old light-cigarette class action that resulted in a $10 billion verdict that has been appealed to the Illinois Supreme Court are seeking recusal or disqualification of one of the court’s judges. Named plaintiffs Sharon Price and Michael Fruth claim in a Feb. 9 motion they have evidence showing Justice Lloyd A. Karmeier is biased in favor of defendant Philip Morris Inc. They had unsuccessfully sought recusal or disqualification of the judge last September. (Tobacco Industry)