<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Minnesota Litigator</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.minnesota-litigator.com/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.minnesota-litigator.com</link>
	<description>Minnesota Business Litigation News &#38; Developments</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 29 Jul 2010 10:38:35 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>Louis Roederer&#8217;s Cristal, Protecting Its Brand</title>
		<link>http://www.minnesota-litigator.com/2010/07/louis-roederers-cristal-protecting-its-brand.html</link>
		<comments>http://www.minnesota-litigator.com/2010/07/louis-roederers-cristal-protecting-its-brand.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 Jul 2010 10:38:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Seth</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.minnesota-litigator.com/?p=2260</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Veteran Minnesota Litigator readers will know of the Battle of the Bubbly which has been fought out before U.S. District Court Judge Joan Ericksen (D. Minn.) over the past year or so.   The fight was between Louis Roederer, seller of the high end &#8220;Cristal&#8221; brand of champagne (nearly $200/bottle), and J. Garcia Carrion&#8217;s Cristalino [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.minnesota-litigator.com/2010/07/louis-roederers-cristal-protecting-its-brand.html/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Reconciling The U.C.C. and The Common Law</title>
		<link>http://www.minnesota-litigator.com/2010/07/the-u-c-c-and-the-common-law.html</link>
		<comments>http://www.minnesota-litigator.com/2010/07/the-u-c-c-and-the-common-law.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 Jul 2010 10:01:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Seth</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.minnesota-litigator.com/?p=2256</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[At the risk of alienating Minnesota Litigator readers with one of dullest posts ever, a published Minnesota Court of Appeals decision has come down this week on the interplay between Article III of the Uniform Commercial Code, on the one hand, &#8220;principles of law and equity&#8221; on the other hand, and determining when the former [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.minnesota-litigator.com/2010/07/the-u-c-c-and-the-common-law.html/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Compucredit v. Akanthos: Antitrust Allegations, Sanctions Motion, Settlement Negotiations and Evidence</title>
		<link>http://www.minnesota-litigator.com/2010/07/compucredit-v-akanthos-antitrust-allegations-sanctions-motion-settlement-negotiations-and-evidence.html</link>
		<comments>http://www.minnesota-litigator.com/2010/07/compucredit-v-akanthos-antitrust-allegations-sanctions-motion-settlement-negotiations-and-evidence.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 Jul 2010 10:43:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Seth</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.minnesota-litigator.com/?p=2198</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[UPDATE:  In response to the hedge funds' motion for sanctions, Compucredit has come out swinging and, you guessed it, asked the Court to sanction the hedge funds for seeking sanctions.  Compucredit's brief weighs in at 52 pages.  It is highly fact-specific/case-specific and, on that basis, probably not of broad usefulness to Minnesota civil litigators.  On [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.minnesota-litigator.com/2010/07/compucredit-v-akanthos-antitrust-allegations-sanctions-motion-settlement-negotiations-and-evidence.html/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Another Minnesota Fraud Gets National Attention</title>
		<link>http://www.minnesota-litigator.com/2010/07/another-minnesota-fraud-gets-national-attention.html</link>
		<comments>http://www.minnesota-litigator.com/2010/07/another-minnesota-fraud-gets-national-attention.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 Jul 2010 00:49:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Seth</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.minnesota-litigator.com/?p=2254</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[We are unlikely to see the likes of Tom Petters&#8217; Minnesota-based massive multi-billion dollar fraud again any time soon but Minnesota&#8217;s still getting some coverage for alleged frauds, if on a smaller scale.  CNN&#8217;s coverage today of Trevor Cook&#8217;s relatively paltry $190 million alleged scam is here.
Alleged co-conspirator, Pat Kiley&#8217;s, pro se complaint, referenced in [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.minnesota-litigator.com/2010/07/another-minnesota-fraud-gets-national-attention.html/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Mom&#8217;s Estate Suing Dad&#8217;s Estate, a Railroad, and Alleged Fraudulent Joinder?!</title>
		<link>http://www.minnesota-litigator.com/2010/07/moms-estate-suing-dads-estate-a-railroad-and-alleged-fraudulent-joinder.html</link>
		<comments>http://www.minnesota-litigator.com/2010/07/moms-estate-suing-dads-estate-a-railroad-and-alleged-fraudulent-joinder.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 25 Jul 2010 10:31:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Seth</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.minnesota-litigator.com/?p=2067</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[UPDATE: Remanded.  BNSF charged with fees for the improper removal.  U.S. Dist. Judge Michael J. Davis, C.J., here.]
David and Judy Brost tragically died when their car, driven by David Brost, was hit by a BNSF train two years ago.  Trustee/Next-of-Kin for Judy Brost brought a wrongful death action in state court, naming the BNSF railroad [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.minnesota-litigator.com/2010/07/moms-estate-suing-dads-estate-a-railroad-and-alleged-fraudulent-joinder.html/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Birds of a Feather, Fire Together?  Minnesota Supreme Court Grants Review</title>
		<link>http://www.minnesota-litigator.com/2010/07/birds-of-a-feather-fire-together-minnesota-supreme-court-grants-review.html</link>
		<comments>http://www.minnesota-litigator.com/2010/07/birds-of-a-feather-fire-together-minnesota-supreme-court-grants-review.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 24 Jul 2010 19:58:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Seth</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.minnesota-litigator.com/?p=2245</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Back in April, Minnesota Litigator reported a Court of Appeals decision that termination based on the fact that one terminated an employee&#8217;s spouse violated Minnesota law prohibiting employment discrimination based on marital status.  This week, the Minnesota Supreme Court granted the plaintiff&#8217;s petition for review.
]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.minnesota-litigator.com/2010/07/birds-of-a-feather-fire-together-minnesota-supreme-court-grants-review.html/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Plaintiff Moves to Dismiss Its Complaint; Defendant Opposes&#8230; (?!?)</title>
		<link>http://www.minnesota-litigator.com/2010/07/plaintiff-moves-to-dismiss-its-complaint-defendant-opposes.html</link>
		<comments>http://www.minnesota-litigator.com/2010/07/plaintiff-moves-to-dismiss-its-complaint-defendant-opposes.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 23 Jul 2010 10:23:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Seth</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.minnesota-litigator.com/?p=2249</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Civil litigation in the context of mergers, acquisitions, tender offers and the like is a breed unto itself, where stakes can be high, deadlines can be imminent and decisive, strategies can be complex, impenetrable, or protean.
So it can be that a plaintiff files a lawsuit it never truly wished to file and a defendant may [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.minnesota-litigator.com/2010/07/plaintiff-moves-to-dismiss-its-complaint-defendant-opposes.html/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>&#8220;Easy Pass&#8221; for the Negligent vs. Windfall for the Undeserving? MN S. Ct. Goes for Windfall</title>
		<link>http://www.minnesota-litigator.com/2010/07/easy-pass-for-the-negligent-vs-windfall-for-the-undeserving-mn-s-ct-goes-for-windfall.html</link>
		<comments>http://www.minnesota-litigator.com/2010/07/easy-pass-for-the-negligent-vs-windfall-for-the-undeserving-mn-s-ct-goes-for-windfall.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 22 Jul 2010 19:50:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Seth</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.minnesota-litigator.com/?p=2241</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[As discussed back on Minnesota Litigator in December, 2009, the Minnesota Supreme Court had to decide a case pitting an arguably negligent secured lender against a wholly undeserving entity whose loan should have been junior in priority, but for a delay in recording the earlier mortgage loan.  Over dissents by Justices Page and Anderson (Paul), [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.minnesota-litigator.com/2010/07/easy-pass-for-the-negligent-vs-windfall-for-the-undeserving-mn-s-ct-goes-for-windfall.html/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Can it box the pasta or not?</title>
		<link>http://www.minnesota-litigator.com/2010/07/can-it-box-the-pasta-or-not.html</link>
		<comments>http://www.minnesota-litigator.com/2010/07/can-it-box-the-pasta-or-not.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 22 Jul 2010 10:29:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Seth</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.minnesota-litigator.com/?p=2218</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Over one year ago, Dakota Pasta Growers brought suit against Thiele, arguing that the for VT-600 Continuous Motion Vertical Cartoner that Dakota Pasta Growers bought for $549,327 in October, 2005 could not meet the express warranty of boxing 300 cartons of pasta per minute.  From the complaint, it would appear that Thiele worked for some [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.minnesota-litigator.com/2010/07/can-it-box-the-pasta-or-not.html/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>An important Minnesota Appellate Products Liability Decision (and a cautionary tale re: privilege waiver)</title>
		<link>http://www.minnesota-litigator.com/2010/07/an-important-minnesota-appellate-products-liability-decision-and-a-cautionary-tale-re-privilege-waiver.html</link>
		<comments>http://www.minnesota-litigator.com/2010/07/an-important-minnesota-appellate-products-liability-decision-and-a-cautionary-tale-re-privilege-waiver.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 21 Jul 2010 19:23:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Seth</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.minnesota-litigator.com/?p=2236</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[When a 380,000 lb. diesel-powered blasthole production drill used in mining operations tips over and kills the operator, civil litigation and strong regulatory responses are near certainties.  This is the factual background of Driscoll v. Standard Hardware and Atlas Copco Drilling Solutions v. United Taconite, decided this week by Judges Toussaint, Hudson, and Willis (retired [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.minnesota-litigator.com/2010/07/an-important-minnesota-appellate-products-liability-decision-and-a-cautionary-tale-re-privilege-waiver.html/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
