The Nature and Cost of Risk and Uncertainty

TAMAR FRANKEL

BU Law emerita professor Tamar Frankel discusses risk and uncertainty to explain people’s decision making as to investments. Frankel points out that people have varying degrees of tolerance for risk and uncertainty, due in part to cultural and individual differences.

Read More

Hoolahan v. IBC Advanced Alloys Corp.

Docket: 19-1444

Opinion Date: January 17, 2020

Judge: Ojetta Rogeriee Thompson

Areas of Law: Arbitration & Mediation

The First Circuit affirmed the decision of the district court denying Appellant's motion to vacate an arbitrator's award, holding that Appellant's attack on the merits of the arbitral award was unavailing. IBC Advanced Alloys Corp. purchased a Beralcast Corporation from Gerald Hoolahan and Gary Mattheson in exchange for cash and shares in the IBC. When Hoolahan decided to sell his shares in the company one year later, he was blocked. Hoolahan later discovered that Mattheson hadn't been similarly blocked when he placed his shares on the market. Hoolahan initiated an arbitration against IBC. During a subsequent hearing it was discovered that IBC had harbored ill-will against Hoolahan, causing it to block Hoolahan's attempt to sell. The arbitrator awarded Hoolahan damages in the amount he would have received if he had sold his shares at the same rate Mattheson received. After IBC unsuccessfully requested that the arbitrator modify the award IBC asked the district court to vacate the award. The district court denied relief. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that IBC did not make a showing that the arbitrator acted in manifest disregard of the law when deciding the award.

United States v. Carpentino

Docket: 18-1969

Opinion Date: January 17, 2020

Judge: Selya

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's conviction of interstate transportation of a minor with intent to engage in criminal sexual activity, holding that the district court did not err in denying Defendant's motion to suppress the confession he made during the second phase of his custodial interrogation. In support of his motion to suppress Defendant argued that the interrogation violated his Fifth Amendment rights as set forth in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), and Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (1981). The district court denied the motion, finding that Defendant initiated the second phase of the interview, that Defendant did not thereafter reinvade his right to counsel, and that Defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his Miranda rights before confessing. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that Defendant's confession was admissible at trial for all of the reasons determined by the district court.

O'Brien v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co.

Docket: 19-1143

Opinion Date: January 17, 2020

Judge: Stahl

Areas of Law: Consumer Law, Real Estate & Property Law

The First Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of Plaintiff's claims alleging that Defendants violated the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A, and the Massachusetts Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93, 49, holding that both counts were time-barred. Plaintiff filed her complaint against the current holder of a mortgage on her property and the servicer of the mortgage loan, alleging that the loan was predatory because at its inception the lender knew or should have known that Plaintiff would not be able to repay it. Defendants removed the case to federal district court and then moved to dismiss the complaint. The district court dismissed the chapter 93A count as time-barred and the second count on the ground that chapter 93, 49 does not provide private right of action. The First Circuit affirmed the dismissal of both counts, albeit on different grounds, holding that both the chapter 93A claim and the chapter 93, 49 claims were time-barred.

APB Realty, Inc. v. Georgia-Pacific LLC

Docket: 19-1311

Opinion Date: January 17, 2020

Judge: William Joseph Kayatta, Jr.

Areas of Law: Contracts

In this breach of contract action the First Circuit affirmed as not clearly erroneous the district court's judgment in favor of Defendant after a bench trial finding no binding contract between the parties, holding that Plaintiff offered no persuasive argument that the district court committed clear error. The First Circuit in this case clarified the difference between facts sufficient to make a claim plausible for pleading purposes and facts sufficient to render a judgment against the claimant clearly erroneous. In a prior decision, the First Circuit reviewed a grant of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and stated that the Court could "plausibly infer" that the parties had formed a contract. The Court emphasized that just because a complaint states a plausible claim for relief does not mean that the claimant has conclusively proven that claim. With the case before the First Circuit a second time, the Court held that by reading too much into its prior ruling, Plaintiff misapprended the manner in which the burden of proof rested once the district court tried the case to a decision and further provided no persuasive argument that the district court committed clear error on remand by determining that no contract existed between the parties.