Background: A listed company entered into a capital and business alliance with another company, which by August 2021 owned 10.66% of its shares. A competing shareholder, OK Corporation, which held 7.69%, proposed acquiring the company through a tender offer at ¥2,250 per share. The company instead considered a share exchange under which it would become the…
Held: The Supreme Court unanimously set aside the appellate decision, dismissed the appeals from the first-instance determination, and reinstated the ¥1,518 purchase price. It held that the appellate court had misinterpreted and misapplied Article 797(1) by increasing the price because the competing proposal and theoretical valuations had been disclosed.
Background: Israel’s national health-insurance system requires health funds to provide child-development diagnoses and treatments, including medicine, psychology, physical therapy, occupational therapy, social work, and communication-disorder services. Because the health funds repeatedly exceeded prescribed waiting periods, a 2010 directive allowed patients to obtain private treatment and receive reimbursement, less a copayment. Over time, that route came to…
Held: The Supreme Court, sitting as the High Court of Justice, unanimously dismissed the petition. Justice Ruth Ronnen explained that management of the health system involves professional, budgetary, and socioeconomic policy judgments within the Ministry’s core expertise, so judicial intervention is limited. The decision to phase out reimbursements rested on professional considerations directed toward strengthening the public system, and the petitioners…
Background: Rachel McClure sued Alan Lam over surgery performed in November 2013 for pelvic organ prolapse involving pelvic mesh and a sub-urethral sling. She alleges, among other things, that Lam failed to provide appropriate advice, should have used a different procedure, and performed the surgery below a reasonable standard. The proceedings began in 2020, and the…
Held: Emmett J permitted Agur to testify by audio visual link under s 5B of the Evidence (Audio and Audio Visual Links) Act 1998 (NSW) and r 31.3 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW). The Court was not satisfied that requiring the overseas witnesses to travel to Sydney would be more convenient overall or that remote evidence would necessarily…
Background: After [C] [P] died in 1967, his widow, [O] [J], executed a 1973 cumulative donation-partage—an inter vivos gift and partition combining her property with assets from her late husband’s estate. Their children, [N] [P] and [R] [P], each received half of the combined pool in return for paying their mother an annual life annuity.
Held: The Court of Cassation partially quashed the judgment. It held that revocation of a cumulative donation-partage for failure to perform its conditions requires the recipient, absent a contrary provision, to return a proportionate share of the assets in his lot. That share is calculated according to the donor’s contribution to the single pool of property divided by the transaction. The…
Background: Francis McGuinness unsuccessfully pursued judicial review arising from a Circuit Court appeal against a District Court summary conviction. His case ultimately focused on whether an orally pronounced conviction had legal effect where the Circuit Court judge had not proceeded to sentence, and whether the matter could be remitted for hearing before another judge after the…
Held: Mr Justice Cian Ferriter rejected McGuinness’s request for his costs and declined to exempt him from paying the DPP’s costs. Although the proceedings could be treated as raising points of general public importance from the Supreme Court’s grant of leave onward, that feature was necessary but not sufficient to justify departing from the ordinary costs rule. Detailed consideration showed that…
Background: Jake Worsley was convicted in Tameside Magistrates’ Court on 30 May 2025 of failing, without reasonable excuse, to provide a specimen of blood, contrary to section 7(6) of the Road Traffic Act 1988. The Magistrates’ Court subsequently refused to state a case for the High Court’s opinion.
Held: The Divisional Court held that it had jurisdiction to make a defendant’s costs order under section 16(5)(a) of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, even though a single High Court judge had decided the substantive judicial-review claim. The outstanding costs application remained part of the proceedings, and CPR 3.1(2)(c) permitted those proceedings to be transferred to a Divisional Court, which…
Background: Bruce Sanford Wallace applied for reinstatement to the practice of law in Ohio after serving the unstayed portion of a disciplinary suspension.
Held: The Supreme Court of Ohio found that Wallace had complied with its January 20, 2026 suspension order and with the reinstatement provisions of Gov.Bar R. V(24).
Background: Stratton Borchers sued Karl Drusch and affiliated companies in the First Division of the Texas Business Court over claims arising from Borchers’s termination as president of an affiliated aviation company. That division compelled arbitration under the holding company’s Operating Agreement, which required controversies arising from the agreement to be submitted to the American Arbitration Association.
Held: The court affirmed the Eighth Division’s exercise of subject-matter jurisdiction. Borchers’s pleaded valuation of the disputed units exceeded the Business Court’s $5 million threshold, and Drusch did not readily establish that valuation was a sham or plainly incredible. A suit seeking the return of membership interests also concerned an organization’s governance, governing documents, or internal affairs and therefore fell within…
Background: Align Technology makes Invisalign clear aligners and the iTero intraoral scanner. In 2015, Align agreed to make Invisalign interoperable with 3Shape’s competing TRIOS scanner, an open system capable of ordering aligners from multiple manufacturers. Align terminated U.S. interoperability in 2017, shortly after suing 3Shape for patent infringement and as important Invisalign patents approached expiration, but…
Held: The Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded. It clarified that a Section 2 refusal-to-deal claim follows a three-step framework: the plaintiff must establish a prima facie case of anticompetitive conduct; the defendant may offer a procompetitive, nonpretextual business justification; and the plaintiff may rebut that justification by showing it is not legitimately procompetitive or is pretextual. If the plaintiff cannot rebut…
Background: Oumer Kinnarath, a critic of the People’s Party of Canada (PPC), helped persuade a Winnipeg art gallery to cancel an event organized by the party’s Winnipeg Centre Electoral District Association (EDA). Monique Choiselat, the EDA’s unpaid chief executive officer, responded by posting statements on her personal Facebook account that called Kinnarath a terrorist and accused…
Held: The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part. Although Choiselat was not a directing mind of the national party and the PPC had not specifically authorized the publication, the PPC was vicariously liable for the defamatory Twitter post. By appointing Choiselat to lead the EDA, authorizing her to manage its official account and allowing her to post without prior…
Background: Demetrius Mack and Elia Pinero are the parents of D, who was born in March 2011 and primarily resided with Pinero before and during the custody action. Mack initiated the action in January 2025 and sought sole legal and physical custody. D was approximately fourteen and one-half years old when the Superior Court tried the…
Held: The Connecticut Appellate Court affirmed. Applying the deferential standard governing child-custody decisions, it concluded that the trial court’s orders were reasonably supported by the record and did not reflect a clear abuse of discretion.
Background: Keiontae Douglas Thomas appealed from a judgment or order of the Circuit Court for Escambia County, where Judge John F. Simon, Jr., presided. The opinion does not identify the charges, the challenged ruling, or the arguments raised on appeal.
Held: The Florida First District Court of Appeal affirmed the circuit court’s decision. Judges Roberts, Rowe, and Kelsey concurred.