In re: Target Corporation Customer Data Security Breach Litigation — instructive 8th Circuit case re class certification

target security breachJim Sciaroni  v.  Target Corporation Civil case – Class Action in Target Security Breach. The district court’s statement in the class certification order regarding Rule 23(a)(4)’s representation adequacy requirement are conclusions, not reasons, and on their own do not constitute the “rigorous analysis” of whether certification was proper in this case; the court has a continuous duty to reevaluate certification throughout the litigation and the court’s order rejecting an allegation of intraclass conflict made before final certification improperly refused to reconsider the issue solely because it had already certified the class; as a result the district court abused its discretion by failing to rigorously analyze the propriety of certification, especially once new arguments regarding the adequacy of representation were raised after preliminary certification, and the matter is remanded to the district court for it to conduct and articulate a rigorous analysis of Rule 23(a)’s certification prerequisites as applied to this case; “costs on appeal” for Rule 7 purposes include only those costs that a prevailing appellate litigant can recover under a specific rule or statute; as a result the bond set in this matter, which included delay-based administrative costs, is reversed and the matter remanded with directions to reduce the Rule 7 bond to reflect only those costs appellee will recover should they succeed in any issues remaining on appeal following the district court’s reconsideration of class certification. The panel retains jurisdiction over any remaining issues following the district court’s disposition on remand. The district court shall certify its findings and conclusions to this court within 120 days.

02/01/2017  Jim Sciaroni  v.  Target Corporation

   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  15-3909 and No:  15-3912 and No:  16-1203 and No:  16-1245 and No:  16-1408

   U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota – Minneapolis

   [PUBLISHED] [Shepherd, Author, with Benton, Circuit Judge, and Strand, District Judge]

Download In re Target Corporation Customer Data Security Breach Litigation

© Copyright 2017 Armstrong Teasdale LLP. All rights reserved

Register for LMA Midwest Chicago CMO Panel Luncheon – February 22nd

Click here to register

February 22, 2017 | 11:30 AM – 1:30 PM

Presenters:
John C. Albrighton, Jim Durham, Jill Himelfarb, John R. Neidecker and Stacy Rowe

We should know by now that it’s not about your attorneys or your firm; it’s about your clients! As clients have increased their demands and expectations of law firms, the one-size-fits-all client experience has become obsolete. Clients have become catalysts for greater changes in the legal industry and to stay competitive, it’s imperative that firms have a strategic, tailored approach to client engagement and service.

Three Chicago-based legal marketing leaders and a well known consultant and former CMO will candidly share their experiences implementing “client-centric” business development initiatives. Our panelists will share their perspectives on the following topics and how they relate to their current client experience management (CEM) strategies:

  • Where Marketing & Business Development Meet – Developing Marketing Strategies that Support Business Development
  • Teams and Resources – Aligning both to support CEM Strategies
  • Revenue Generation – Evaluating Opportunities and Developing Pursuit Strategies
  • Cross-Selling – Overcoming Barriers and Fostering Success
  • Business Intelligence + Client Feedback – Using Information to Drive Action

In a nutshell, “client experience management” describes the process by which firms attract and retain a greater number of clients by validating business strategy and improving the value brought to individual clients and prospective clients through services rendered, relationships and targeted and optimized engagement.

Location:
Neal, Gerber & Eisenberg LLP
2 N. LaSalle Street
Suite 1700
Chicago, IL 60602

Lunch will be provided.

$40 LMA Members
$60 Non-Members and any registrations after February 20th
Note: You must be logged in to the LMA website to receive the member rate.

R. Alexander Acosta Picked to Head Department of Labor

Alexander Acosta DOLPresident Donald Trump has nominated R. Alexander Acosta to be Secretary of Labor. His nomination comes one day after Andrew Puzder, Trump’s first pick to lead the Department of Labor, withdrew his nomination.

Acosta, currently the Dean of Florida International University’s law school, is the son of Cuban immigrants. If confirmed, Acosta would be the first Hispanic member of Trump’s Cabinet.

Acosta is a graduate of Harvard College and Harvard Law School. He clerked for Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr. when Alito was a Judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, in Philadelphia. Acosta then went into private practice at the Washington, D.C. law firm Kirkland & Ellis and taught law at the George Mason School of Law.

Acosta has been confirmed by the Senate three times — to become a National Labor Relations Board member, then to become Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice, and finally when he was nominated to be U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida.

He was appointed by President George W. Bush as member of the National Labor Relations Board, and served as a Board member from December 17, 2002, through August 21, 2003. Acosta reportedly authored approximately 125 opinions during his tenure on the Board.

Thereafter, Acosta served as Assistant Attorney General for the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division under President George W. Bush until June 2005. He later was appointed U.S. Attorney for Southern District of Florida, where he served until becoming the Dean of FIU Law in 2009.

How to Develop an Effective Law Firm SEO Action Plan for 2017 [WEBINAR]

What used to work in SEO just a few years ago won’t work today.12-must-do-action-steps.png Learn how to make this year your most profitable ever by getting consistent leads from SEO and positioning your firm as thought leaders.

Tuesday, March 14, 2017 – 3:00pm EST

Join John McDougall from McDougall Interactive and Nicole Minnis, Esq. from The National Law Review for a free 60-minute digital marketing webinar, where you will learn:

  • Step-by-step actions you should take in the next 12 months to substantially increase your revenues.
  • Powerful strategies that are based on the 10,000 keyword study from Searchmetrics, including the latest Google ranking factors including Content, Social Signals, Technical Factors, Backlinks, User Signals, and User Experience
  • Highlights from the Orbit Media study of 1,000 bloggers and what they do to stand out.

Some examples of cutting-edge topics we’ll be discussing (this is way more than just “add keywords” and “add more content”):

  • Why click-through-rate, time-on-site, and bounce rate are more important than ever
  • Why merely having keywords in your meta tags and copy is not nearly enough
  • How the length of your content can affect your search rankings
  • How video and podcasts can enhance your thought leadership and improve your mobile user experience and search rankings at the same time
  • Why links are still significant, especially deep links to inner pages
  • The extremely high correlation between social signals and ranking position
  • How your website load time can directly affect your search rankings, especially on mobile devices

Click here to register now.

This webinar will leave you with 12 must-do action steps for success, based on data from industry leaders, as well as a list of ridiculously great tools you can use to speed up your process and spy on competitors.

In today’s hyper-competitive legal SEO landscape, your either need to do SEO deeply or don’t waste time doing it at all.

IOSCO Releases Report on Fintech

IOSCO Fintech financial technologyThe International Organisation of Securities Commissions (IOSCO) has released a new report that says that changes resulting from FinTech are testing the boundaries of full disintermediation through the use of technology.  IOSCO is the international body that brings together the world’s securities regulators and is a global standard setter for the securities sector. IOSCO develops, implements and promotes adherence to internationally recognised standards for securities regulation. It works with the G20 and the Financial Stability Board on the global regulatory reform agenda.

The report incorporates the finding of three surveys:

  1. the Committee on Emerging Risks (CER) and the Growth and Emerging Markets Committee (GEMC) survey to gain further insight on the types of FinTech firms in respective jurisdictions, key regulatory actions taken by members, and the practices of FinTech firms in onboarding investors;

  2. the CER, the Affiliate Members Consultative Committee, and World Federation of Exchanges survey on distributed ledger technology; and

  3. a GEMC survey reviewing the state of development of FinTech in emerging markets, including existing and potential regulatory implications.

The report particularly examines:

  • Financing Platforms, including Peer-to-Peer (P2P) lending and equity crowdfunding (ECF)

  • Retail Trading and Investment Platforms, including robo-advisers and social trading and investing platforms

  • Institutional Trading Platforms, with a specific focus on innovation in bond trading platforms

  • Distributed Ledger Technologies (DLT), including application of the blockchain technology and shared ledgers to the securities markets.

ARTICLE BY Jonathan Lawrence of K&L Gates

Copyright 2017 K & L Gates

March 2017 Visa Bulletin Update

The Department of State’s (DOS) March 2017 Visa Bulletin showed some minor movement in some employment-based categories, with more significant movement in other employment-based visa categories.

The Worldwide EB-1 category remains current for all categories, including individuals born in mainland China, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, India, Mexico, and the Philippines.

The cutoff date for worldwide chargeability in the EB-2 category is current but for mainland China and India.  There was significant movement for mainland China in the EB-2 category which moved from July 15, 2012 to Dec. 15, 2012, and for India, which moved from Nov. 1, 2007 to June 1, 2008.

In the EB-3 category, the cutoff date for worldwide chargeability, as well as El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Mexico moved five months from July 1, 2016 to Dec. 1, 2016.  The cutoff dates for mainland China and the Philippines both had significant movement, with nearly eleven months for both, with China advancing from April 15, 2013 to March 15, 2014, and the Philippines advancing from April 1, 2011 to March 15, 2012.

For those in the EB-5 category, the priority date remains current for all applicants other than those born in mainland China, which moved its cutoff date by almost two months from March 8, 2014 to May 1, 2014.

For those seeking to adjust status, The United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) website indicates that the Department’s Application Final Action Dates chart must be used for filing Form I-485.  This has not yet been updated with the March 2017 dates; however, we anticipate that USCIS will continue to follow Application Final Action Dates for March as well.

Final Action Dates for Employment-Based Preference Cases

immi blog march

Dates for Filing of Employment-Based Visa Applications

visa bulletin

ARTICLE BY Patricia A. Elmas of Greenberg Traurig, LLP

© 2017 Greenberg Traurig, LLP. All rights reserved.

FTC’s Settlement in Vizio May Provide Hint at Direction of Internet of Things Regulation

Internet of ThingsThe Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC’s) Settlement in FTC v. Vizio, Inc.may signal the direction that agency is heading on Internet of Things (IoT) enforcement. With veteran FTC enforcer Jessica Rich leaving and new appointee Maureen Ohlhausen taking over, Ohlhausen’s separate concurring statement in that matter is insightful.

The settlement took a broad view on the types of data that require protection. While the “Covered Information” included information like personal identifiers, IP address, and geolocation, it also included “Viewing Data,” which is essentially data about the content viewed on a television. Ohlhausen criticized this expansion and the FTC’s foray into this public policy basis for alleging an unfair practice. She notes, “But here, for the first time, the FTC has alleged in a complaint that individualized television viewing activity falls within the definition of sensitive information.” Hinting that this broad view of personal data may not continue, Ohlhausen writes, “There may be good policy reasons to consider such information sensitive…. But, under our statute, we cannot find a practice unfair based primarily on public policy. Instead, we must determine whether the practice causes substantial injury that is not reasonably avoidable by the consumer and is not outweighed by benefits to competition or consumers.” She then promises that “[i]n the coming weeks I will launch an effort to examine this important issue further.”

© MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP