In Betz v. Trainer Wortham & Co., No. 05-15704, a securities fraud action, the court granted defendants' motion to remand the case to the district court following the Supreme Court's decision vacating the Ninth Circuit's earlier opinion, on the grounds that 1) the district court had procedures available to it relating to the scope of the record and the determination of facts which are not available to us; and 2) once the district court made its decision and a final order was presented, the matter could again be appealed to the Ninth Circuit if either party sought further review.
Ta Chong Bank Ltd. v. Hitachi High Techs. Am., Inc., No. 08-17007, involved a complaint asserting several claims against Hitachi High Technologies America, Inc. based on plaintiff-bank's interest in the accounts receivable of a third party, pursuant to certain factoring agreements entered into by those entities. The court of appeals affirmed the dismissal of the complaint, on the ground that the claims were based solely on plaintiff's interest in the third party's accounts receivable, which the bankruptcy court had determined to be property of the third party's bankruptcy estate.
In US v. Graf, No. 07-50100, the court of appeals affirmed defendant's convictions for conspiracy, mail fraud, misappropriation, conducting unlawful monetary transactions, and obstruction of justice, holding that defendant did not hold a personal attorney-client privilege with respect to his communications with the subject attorneys, and thus his communications with those attorneys could be disclosed to the government.
- Full Text of Betz v. Trainer Wortham & Co., No. 05-15704
- Full Text of Ta Chong Bank Ltd. v. Hitachi High Techs. Am., Inc., No. 08-17007
- Full Text of US v. Graf, No. 07-50100