Legal Entities: Avco Corporation (“Avco”) is a wholly owned subsidiary of TextronInc. Bell Helicopter TextronInc. (“Bell Helicopter”) is a wholly owned subsidiary of TextronInc. Bell Helicopter consists of several subsidiaries and operating divisions. The Textron Systems group of businesses includes AAI Unmanned Aircraft Systems, AAI Test & Training, and AAI Logistics & Technical Services, each of which is an unincorporated division of AAI Corporation; Overwatch Systems Ltd.; Textron Systems Corporation (d/b/a Textron Defense Systems); Lycoming Engines, an operat- ing division of Avco Corporation; and the Textron Marine & Land Systems Division of TextronInc. AAI Corporation, Overwatch Systems Ltd., and Textron Systems Corporation are subsidiaries of Avco Corporation, a wholly-owned subsidiary of TextronInc. Cessna Aircraft Company (“Cessna”) is a wholly owned subsidiary of TextronInc. Kautex conducts its business through a number of separately incorporated companies and other operations. The Greenlee business unit consists of various legal entities, including but not limited to Greenlee TextronInc.,a wholly owned sub- sidiary of TextronInc. Textron Financial Corporation (“Textron Financial”) is a wholly owned subsidiary of TextronInc. Textron Financial consists of several subsidiaries and operating divisions. Trademarks: AAI; AH-1Z; BA609; Bell/Agusta Aerospace Company, LLC; Bell Helicopter; Bravo; Cadillac Gage; Caravan; Caravan 675; Caravan Amphibian; Cessna; Cessna 350; Cessna 400; Citation; Citation Encore+; CitationAir; CitationAir Jetcard; Citation TEN; Citation X; Citation XLS+; Citation Sovereign; CJ1+; CJ2+; CJ3; CJ4; CLAW; Corvalis; Eclipse; Excel; E-Z-GO; Fly Smart. Fly Bell; Grand Caravan; Greenlee; H-1; Huey II; IE2; Kautex; Kiowa Warrior; Klauke; Lycoming; M1117 ASV; McCauley; Mustang; NGFS; Next Generation Fuel System; Overwatch; Paladin; PDCue; Power Advantage; Progressive; ProParts; Rothenberger LLC; RXV; Sensor Fuzed Weapon; SHADOW; Sovereign; SkyBOOKS; SkyPLUS; SkyCatcher; Skyhawk; Skyhawk SP; Skylane; ST 4X4; Stationair; Super Cargomaster; SuperCobra; SYMTX; TDCue; Tempo; Textron; Textron Defense Systems; Textron Financial Corporation; Textron Global Technology Center; Textron Marine & Land Systems; Textron Systems; Turbo Skylane; Turbo Stationair; UAV SYSTEMS SPECIALIST; UH-1Y; US Helicopter; V-22 Osprey; 2FIVE; 429
Work Product Doctrine The First Circuit Further Confuses an Existing Circuit Split in United States v Textron Inc SMU Law Review Volume 63 | Issue 1 Article 13 2010 Work Product Doctrine The First Cir[.]
Discoverability opponents object to this line of thinking. “The scope of the work-product doctrine should not depend on what party is asserting it.” 119 Instead, they point to the powerful tools the IRS already has at its disposal in collecting taxes—namely, the IRS sum- mons (threatened or actual) and the ability to impose federal penal- ties. 120 With these weapons in its arsenal, the playing field on which the IRS and corporate taxpayers operate is much more level than dis- coverability proponents claim. 121 Further, the IRS’s desire for more efficient investigations into UTPs—its admitted motivation in Tex- find and evaluate the SILO transactions implicated in Textron. Id. While new efforts to make tax positions more transparent, such as the requirement to complete Sched- ule M-3 and Form 8271, assist in locating evasive tax shelters, the IRS cannot possibly examine and understand an entity’s tax positions from these forms alone. Id.
A. Background and Procedural History
1. Background: In Textron, after commencing an audit and discovering what it believed to be abusive listed transactions, the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) requested that Textron, Inc. (“Textron”) turn over all of its 2001 year tax accrual workpapers. These workpapers, which were created by Textron’s in-house tax attorneys and CPAs, included spreadsheets listing uncertain tax positions, percentage estimates of the hazards of litigation concerning same, and the tax reserve amounts necessary if the IRS challenges the transactions. However, because Textron declined to produce them, the IRS moved to enforce a Summons for the workpapers. 2. Procedural History:
Textron, Inc., vacated and remanded the district court’s finding,
holding that Textron’s work papers were not protected by the work product privilege. 52 The circuit court abandoned the because of test adopted in Maine and instead created a completely new test for analyzing the in anticipation of litigation requirement of Rule 26(b)(3). 53 The new (and very narrow) 54 test—the for use in litigation test—requires that material be prepared for use in possible litigation, allowing discovery of documents where there was no implication that they would actually be used at trial. 55 The Textron court’s view that the work product privilege is aimed at protecting work done for litigation and not for preparing financial statements is evidenced by the court’s statement: “‘[P]repared in anticipation of litigation or for trial’ did not . . . mean prepared for some purpose other than litigation: it meant only that the work might be done for litigation but
120 | Page Social Sector Metrics Inc. & Health Intelligence Inc. | 12/31/2011
Orthopaedic surgery is interesting because only four distinct DHAs provide the service and each has a significant number of surgeons. In this specialty, productivity is reasonably comparable but the wait list trends are not. DHA 9 and DHA 6 lists continue to grow while DHA 8 is stable and DHA 3 is declining significantly. Surgeon productivity and OR hours are important for PRP forecast modeling. The preceding figure records a conservatively 10% higher OR theatre minutes (min) per case in DHA 9 in all specialties based upon interview findings. This difference is not due to case complexity but rather to higher throughput efficiency of secondary level ORs in comparison to tertiary ORs. This interview finding is consistent with the Consultant findings in similar projects within Canada.
HarbourView and AAArdvark IV Funding Limited (“AAArdvark IV”), an entity advised by HarbourView, in connection with investments made by TSL (USA) Inc. (“TSL”) and other investors in AAArdvark IV. The complaint, as amended, alleged breach of contract and common law fraud against the defendants and sought compensatory damages and an award of attorneys’ fees and litigation expenses. On April 11, 2013, the court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment, dismissing plaintiffs’ fraud claim with prejudice and dismissing their contract claim without prejudice. On May 9, 2013, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal from the court’s dismissal order. On January 7, 2014, the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s dismissal order. On March 28, 2014, the parties executed an omnibus release and settlement agreement and filed a stipulation of discontinuance dismissing the lawsuit with prejudice. On July 15, 2011, a lawsuit was filed in New York state court against the Adviser, HarbourView and AAArdvark Funding Limited (“AAArdvark I”), an entity advised by HarbourView, in
13. The rate schedules and supporting documentation for this proceeding were submitted while Apex was still legally named AltaGas Utilities Inc. Because these will be in effect throughout 2021 and will be posted on the Commission’s and Apex’s webpages, for ease of reference for customers, Apex is directed to refile its rate schedules, T&Cs and appendixes, as a post-disposition document, under the new name by January 31, 2021.
After trial on the merits, a jury found two U.S. pat- ents valid and infringed. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc., and Roche Molecular Systems, Inc., moved for judgment as a matter of law on invalidity and noninfringement. Verinata Health, Inc., and Illumina, Inc., moved for a permanent injunction. The district court denied the parties’ motions. Verinata and Illumina appeal the de- nial of the permanent injunction. Ariosa and Roche cross-appeal the denial of judgment as a matter of law on invalidity and noninfringement. We conclude that substantial evidence supports the district court’s denial of Ariosa’s motion for judgment as a matter of law on noninfringement and invalidity. We also conclude that the district court did not abuse its dis- cretion by denying Verinata and Illumina’s motion for a permanent injunction. We affirm.
For example, Environmental Consultants + Contractors Inc. (ECC Inc.) specifies in each of its requests a particular address about which it seeks records and explains that the records are sought because “ECC is currently performing a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment for the above-referenced location.” 250 Likewise, Hillman Consulting, LLC’s requests all identify a particular property about which records are requested. 251 Although Hillman does not specify the purpose of the request, it also provides Phase I ESA’s as part of their “Real Estate Due Diligence” services, 252 and the requests are very likely to be on behalf of clients who have employed such services. The same is true for React Environmental Professional Services Group, Inc. (REPSG), which repeatedly requests “Water Quality Management, Water Supply & Community Health, Underground Storage Tank (UST) Records, Manifests, Environmental Cleanup Program, Solid Waste Management and Air Quality” about particular properties. 253
Midwestern Connecticut Council on Alcoholism, Inc Midwestern Connecticut Council on Alcoholism, Inc Midwestern Connecticut Council on Alcoholism, Inc Midwestern Connecticut Council on Alcoholism, Inc Midwestern Connecticut Council on Alcoholism, Inc Montassori School on Edgewood, Inc
MIDSOUTH CAPITAL INC 211181 MIDWESTERN SECURITIES TRADING 210042 MILKIE/FERGUSON INVESTMENTS 209461 MINNESOTA LIFE INSURANCE CO 212701 MINNESOTA VALLEY INVESTMENTS 208734 MMC SECURITIES CORP 208738 MML INVESTORS SERVICES INC 255 MOLONEY SECURITIES CO INC 208857 MONEY CONCEPTS CAPITAL CORP 203930 MONEY MANAGEMENT ADVISORY INC 208679 MONEY MARKET 1 INSTITUTIONAL 210043 MONY LIFE INSURANCE CO 65034 MONY SECURITIES CORP 210061 MOORS & CABOT INC 211167 MORGAN KEEGAN & CO 780 MORGAN STANLEY SMITH BARNEY LLC 15 MORGAN STANLEY SMITH BARNEY LLC 50 MORGAN STANLEY SMITH BARNEY LLC 418
relevant all recoveries achieved or achievable by the Caisse under the Debenture’s authority.
 The appellant argues those assertions are contradicted by the documents attached to Mr. West’s affidavit, which it claims demonstrate: (1) no security was provided for the 1999 WLC Peru S.A. loan beyond the $750,000 promissory note and the guarantees of 047438 N.B. Inc. and Mr. West; (2) the 1995 Debenture did not secure any indebtedness other than the $1,500,000 to which it refers; and (3) the assets seized and sold by the Caisse were assets of 047438 N.B. Inc. that had been given as security under the Debenture and collateral mortgages for loans other than the WLC Peru S.A. loan. Of course, those arguments would seem to leave unanswered several of the respondents’ set- off allegations, including the one based upon the contention that the $750,000 referenced in the 1999 promissory note did not generate new funds or an additional debt, but was part and parcel of the $1,500,000 secured by the 1995 Debenture.