6th Cir. Published Decisions for Nov 20-24, 2006

Opinion	Pub Date	Short Title/District
06a0427p.06	2006/11/20	USA v. Gale     Southern District of Ohio at Columbus Criminal Sentencing
06a0428p.06	2006/11/20	Higgins v. Renico     Eastern District of Michigan at Bay City Conditional Habeas Corpus granted
06a0429p.06	2006/11/20	USA v. Magouirk     Eastern District of Tennessee at Winchester Criminal: Sentencing
06a0430p.06	2006/11/21	USA v. Portela     Eastern District of Tennessee at Greeneville Criminal:L Sentencing
06a0431p.06	2006/11/21	Vanguard Fire v. NLRB     State of Michigan Agency Labor Law:  Withdrawing recognition
06a0432p.06	2006/11/22	Ford v. Wilder Western District of Tennessee at Memphis Elections:  Jurisdiction and atty fees
06a0433p.06	2006/11/22	Bank of New York v. Janowick Western District of Kentucky at Owensboro Insurance: Interpleader for money found during reorganization KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge. When an insurance company’s reorganization yields a pot of money that no one expected or even envisioned, who receives the proceeds? In short, that is the issue this case requires the court to resolve. Bank of New York (“BNY”) filed this interpleader action to resolve conflicting claims to stock it received from Prudential Insurance Company of America’s demutualization, i.e., its reorganization from a mutual insurance company to a stock company. BNY received the stock as successor-in-interest to the former trustee of the National-Southwire Aluminum Company (“NSA”) Pension Plan (“NSA Plan” or “Plan”). The Plan terminated in 1986, and the trustee used the Plan’s assets to purchase two group annuity contracts, which satisfied the Plan’s ERISA obligations to the employees. The claimants to the stock are a class of employees (“Employees”) of the now-defunct NSA (represented by Defendants-Appellants Janowick, Erwin, and Kannapel), Defendant-Appellee Southwire Company (“Southwire”) (the parent company of the former NSA), and Defendant-Appellant Century Aluminum Company (“Century”) (the purchaser of the former NSA’s assets). The district court addressed the claims in two phases, first concluding via summary judgment that Southwire’s claims were superior to those of the Employees, and next concluding that Southwire’s claims trumped Century’s. The Employees and Century both appeal. Regarding the Employees’ appeal, we REVERSE the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Southwire, as we conclude that both Kentucky law and the nature of demutualization compel the conclusion that the Employees are entitled to the proceeds, and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. As to Century’s appeal, we VACATE the district court’s judgment and DISMISS Century’s appeal as moot, as we conclude that Century could not have purchased from Southwire that which Southwire never owned.
06a0434p.06	2006/11/22	Scarbrough v. Morgan Cnty Bd Ed     Eastern District of Tennessee at Knoxville Specifically, he claims that when the Board  enied him  the position of Director of  schools, it was retaliating against him for exercising his First Amendment freedoms and treating him differently than similarly situated  applicants based only upon their animus toward homosexuals.