Litigation Archives - Page 16 of 107 - The National Law Forum

Not Ship Shape: SEC Sues Retired Chief Petty Officer for Fraudulent Offerings to Navy-Related Victims

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) Office of Investor Education and Advocacy (“OIEA”), which dates from last century, is concerned with explaining aspects of the capital markets for “Main Street” investors and warning them against potential risks and fraud schemes. On Sept. 25, 2017, the Commission announced the formation of the Retail Strategy Task Force (“RSTF”) in its Division of Enforcement. Its purpose is to consider and implement “strategies to address misconduct that victimizes retail investors,” according to the SEC Press Release issued that day. A primary focus area of the OIEA and RSTF is so-called “affinity investments,” i.e., investment offerings aimed at groups such as churches, ethnic communities, college alumni groups, etc.

On Wednesday, July 27, 2022, the SEC filed suit in the Federal Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, against Robert F. Murray, 42, a retired U.S. Navy Chief Petty Officer residing in North Canton, Ohio, for conducting an unregistered offering of securities in Deep Dive Strategies, LLC, an Ohio private pooled investment fund (the “Fund”). Murray controlled the Fund and acted as investment adviser, telling investors the fund would invest in publicly traded securities. Murray marketed the offering through a Facebook group “with over 3500 active duty, reservists and veterans of the U.S. Navy who shared an interest in investing,” according to the Complaint. Most certainly an “affinity” group. Murray also created “a channel on the Discord social media platform where he live-streamed his trading activity and posted trading advice with a focus on options.”

The Fund was organized in September 2020 and solicited investors through February 2021. Although Murray told investors they could change their minds within 15 days and get their money back, in fact he “almost immediately began spending Fund money on personal expenses.” He transferred monies to his personal checking account and even withdrew cash from the Fund, so by February 2021, $148,000, or approximately 42% of the $355,000 invested by the unsuspecting “Goats” (a nickname for the Navy affinity group), had been “misappropriated” (i.e., stolen) by Murray. By March 2021 he had ceased regular communication with the Goats and failed to respond to requests to redeem “invested” dollars. Some of that misappropriated money was lost gambling at casinos in Cleveland and elsewhere in the Midwest.

Murray provided potential investors with both a Disclosure Statement and a copy of the Fund’s Operating Agreement, and the Complaint identifies several material misstatements and omissions in the two documents. In addition, Murray made oral material misstatements and omitted material information when speaking with potential and actual investors. In fact, Murray lost most of the Fund’s brokerage account on Jan. 13, 2021, when GameStop options purchased in the account saw their value plummet. In that connection see my Feb. 2, 2021, Blog “Rupture Rapture: Should the GameStop?” When the SEC began investigating Murray and the Fund, he asserted his Fifth Amendment rights and declined to answer questions.

In the Complaint, the Commission charges Murray with seven different securities law violations, each set out in a separate Count as follows:

Violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder by using devices, making untrue statements, and misleading omissions, and engaging in a business which operate as a fraud on securities purchasers.
Violation of Section 17(a)(1) of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “33 Act”), by offering and selling securities by means of interstate commerce using devices to defraud. Violations of the 33 Act can be proven without the need to prove scienter (broadly, intent).
Violation of Section 17(a)(2) of the 33 Act by obtaining money or property in connection with the sale of securities by means of untrue statements of material facts and making misleading omissions, engaging in transactions which operate as a fraud on the purchaser, where Murray was at least negligent in engaging in these activities.
Violation of Sections 5(a) and 5(c) of the 33 Act by selling securities without the offering being registered (or exempt from registration), and with the use of a prospectus where the offering was not registered.
Violation of Section 206(1) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, as amended (the “40 Act”) by acting as an investment adviser using devices to defraud clients and prospective clients.
Violation of Section 206(2) of the 40 Act by acting as an investment adviser engaging in transactions which operate as a fraud on clients and prospective clients.
Violation of Section 206(4) of the 40 Act and Rule 206(4)-8 thereunder by acting as an investment adviser to a pooled investment vehicle, making untrue statements of material fact and making misleading omissions and engaging in acts that are fraudulent with respect to investors in the pooled investment vehicle.

The SEC seeks entry of findings by the Court of the facts cited in the Complaint and of conclusions of law that concur with the Commission’s assertions of violations. In addition, the SEC seeks entry of a permanent injunction against future violations of the cited securities laws; an order requiring disgorgement of all Murray’s ill-gotten gains plus prejudgment interest; an order imposing a civil penalty of $1,065,000; and an order barring Murray from serving as an officer or director of any public company.

Murray preyed on his fellow Naval servicemen in violation of the unspoken understandings of the “Goats,” that a fellow Navy NCO would not seek to take financial advantage of them. That is why the SEC’s July 28, 2022, Press Release reporting this matter includes an express warning from the OIEA and the RSTF not to make “investment decisions based solely on common ties with someone recommending or selling the investment.” One wonders whether, if the Goats were to catch up with Murray, he would be keelhauled.

Article By Peter D. Hutcheon of Norris McLaughlin P.A.

For more securities and SEC legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Fall 2022 Legal Industry News Highlights: Law Firm Hiring and Expansion, Notable Awards and Recognition, and the Latest in Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion

Happy November! As the holiday season approaches, we hope you and yours are remaining safe, happy, and healthy. Please read on below for the latest in legal industry updates, including notable law firm hirings and expansions, legal awards and recognition, and diversity, equity, and inclusion news.

Law Firm Hiring and Updates

Ropes & Gray has named 21 new partners as of November 1st, 2022. They have been selected for their roles as outstanding advisors to the firm’s clients across the globe, representing practices and specialties across sectors such as healthcare, life sciences, technology, labor and employment, and more.

“We are pleased to welcome this new group of partners, who are uniquely positioned to help our clients thrive in today’s uncertain economic environment,” said Chair Julie Jones. “These lawyers are problem solvers and big-picture thinkers, guided by a commercial approach and a deep understanding of the law.”

The firm’s newest partners are as follows: Samantha Barrett Badlam, Stephanie Bruce, Drew Clary, Dan Coyne, Sally Davis, William T. Davison, Gabrielle DiBernardi, Shona Ha, Laura Hirst, Yoni Levy, Nichole Lopez-Tackett, Jessica Marlin, Pascal Mayer, Anthony Mongone, Jessica Reece, Ben Rhode, Scott Rolnik, Alexander Simkin, Annie Sipe, PJ Sullivan, and Dan Zuckerman.

Baker Donelson has added Jill Walters to its Corporate Restructuring & Bankruptcy Group. Located in the firm’s Raleigh/Research Triangle office, Ms. Walters joins as a shareholder, providing more than fifteen years of experience counseling clients in restructuring, bankruptcy, insolvency, and complex Chapter 11 cases. Her work spans many industries and sectors, such as healthcare, manufacturing, real estate, and construction.

“I am thrilled to welcome Jill to the Firm. She is an excellent addition to our team and further deepens our bankruptcy and restructuring bench,” said Eric L. Pruitt, leader of Baker Donelson’s Corporate Restructuring & Bankruptcy Group. “Jill joins a dedicated team that has extensive litigation and transactional experience, and is advising clients in highly complex financial restructuring and bankruptcy cases.”

Morgen A. Mueller has joined Goldberg Segalla as an associate in the firm’s Chicago office. Now a part of the Workers’ Compensation practice group, Ms. Mueller focuses her practices on representing and defending insurers, administrators, and employers in all aspects of employment law, managing claims at all stages, including discovery, hearings, depositions, arbitrations, mediations, and trials.

Previously, Ms. Mueller served as legal counsel at Liberty Mutual Insurance, where she handled workers’ compensation defense cases and personal injury cases.

Davis|Kuelthau s.c. and SmithAmundsen LLC have announced that they will formally merge on November 1st, 2022, to form Amundsen Davis, LLC. The firm will offer services in a wide variety of areas, including labor and employment, intellectual property, litigation, mergers and acquisitions, real estate, and more. Comprised of twelve offices across the US, Amundsen Davis will serve clients both nationally and internationally.

“SmithAmundsen has grown steadily and strategically over the last 25 years to add service areas and expand our geographic reach to truly benefit our clients,” said Managing Partner Larry A. Schechtman. “The opportunity to combine with a firm that is so like-minded is one we are very excited about. What will set Amundsen Davis apart from its large law firm competition is our ability to maintain a boutique firm feeling in terms of client service while providing the resources and infrastructure of a large national firm.”

Legal Industry Awards and Recognition

Julia Perkins, partner at Varnum LLP, was named Class of 2022 Leaders in the Law by Michigan Lawyers Weekly. This honor goes to lawyers who have had outstanding accomplishments, exhibited leadership in improving the justice system in Michigan, and have made improvements to the legal community.

Ms. Perkins is the leader of Varnum’s Family Law Practice Group. Her contributions go beyond the legal field as she has served on the advisory committee for Kids Talk Children’s Advocacy Center since 2005. Using her legal experience, she volunteers as a mediator for Lakeshore Legal Aid. Lakeshore Legal Aid provides legal services to low-income families, seniors, and survivors of domestic violence and sexual assault.

LMG Life Sciences recognized five ArentFox Schiff lawyers’ outstanding work in the life sciences industry. The organization specifically recognizes key North American law firms and lawyers that work in the field of life sciences, taking into account case evidence, peer feedback, and client feedback for rankings.

The ArentFox Schiff attorneys that were selected, as well as their practice groups, are as follows:

Partner Imron Aly – Hatch-Waxman Patent Litigation
Partner Richard J Berman – General Patent Litigation, Patent Prosecution, Patent Strategy & Management, Hatch-Waxman Patent Litigation
Partner Kevin Nelson – Hatch-Waxman Patent Litigation
Partner Sailesh Patel – Hatch-Waxman Patent Litigation
Partner Stephanie Trunk – Healthcare Pricing & Reimbursement

Rhonda Tobin of Robinson & Cole LLP was one of five women recognized for Managing Partner of the Year in Corporate Counsel’s 2022 Women, Influence and Power in Law (WIPL) Awards. The WIPL Awards are meant to honor general counsel, in-house attorneys, and other law firm leaders who have demonstrated ongoing efforts to empower women in the legal profession, and who have overall made a substantial impact on the field.

Ms. Tobin is a partner at Robinson+Cole and has spent 32 years working on high-profile insurance coverage litigation. She has served as Managing Committee for 12 years and as a chair of the firm’s Litigation Section for 13 years before becoming the firm’s first woman managing partner. This year, she was also listed in the Hartford Business Journal’s 2022 Power Players Section, and she has also been recognized on the Insurance Law Trailblazers list from the National Law Journal.

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion

Global law firm Kennedys and U.S. law firm Miller Canfield have achieved Mansfield Plus Certification from Diversity Lab, a DEI incubator. Diversity Lab adopted the Mansfield Rule, a 12-month program for law firms to boost underrepresented groups in firm leadership, in 2017. The 2021-2022 Mansfield 5.0 program required firms to consider at least 30% historically marginalized groups for at least 70% of senior promotions and enrichment roles, track and document job candidate demographics, submit three-month, six-month, and annual surveys and data collections, and build professional community with other firms.

Kennedys achieved U.S and U.K. certification as a first-time participant in the program. “Kennedys has always been committed to D&I but participating in Mansfield provided both a structure and a mechanism for accountability that allowed us to move beyond words to concrete action. It was a turning point for all of us and has allowed us to continue to identify concrete goals for the future,” says Meg Catalano, US Regional Managing Partner and Global Board Member.

Miller Canfield is a veteran of the Mansfield Program. The firm was the first in Michigan to adopt the rule, one of 27 firms to achieve certification in the program’s first year, and one of 39 to be certified five years in a row.

“When we first adopted the Mansfield Rule, we didn’t know how or if this small, but influential, group would have an impact on the profession and on law firms nationwide,” said Miller Canfield CEO Megan Norris. “We didn’t know whether law firms would be ready to adopt this level of transparency and accountability. We’re pleased to see that the movement is growing and maintaining momentum to create an opportunity for equity in law firms.”

The American Association for Access, Equity And Diversity presented Jackson Lewis P.C. with their 2022 President’s Award at a virtual award ceremony on October 13^th, 2022. The award is intended to recognize organizations that have demonstrated ongoing commitment to the AAAED and their mission of expanding access, equity, and diversity.

Jackson Lewis’ Affirmative Action, OFCCP and Government Contract Compliance practice group works with clients and partners to foster a strong DEI culture within a wide range of powerful organizations and industries. The firm has collaborated with AAAED on a number of initiatives, from providing faculty for the AAAED Professional Training Institute to participating on an AAAED amicus brief team to submit two briefs before the U.S. Supreme Court, Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College and Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. University of North Carolina.

“We are thrilled to be recognized for the President’s Award,” says Matthew J. Camardella, co-leader of the firm’s Affirmative Action, OFCCP and Government Contract Compliance group. “I would like to thank Firm Chair Kevin G. Lauri and Chief Diversity, Equity & Inclusion Officer and Principal Kimya S.P. Johnson for continuing to invest in our partnership with AAAED and its mission to promote and protect policies that ensure equity and inclusion in all spheres of opportunity.”

Article By Chandler Ford, Crissonna Tennison, and Shelby Garrett of The National Law Review / The National Law Forum LLC

For more business of law legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Actual Malice in the Age of #fakenews

Public figures are fighting back against fake news.

In the most recent headline from the world of celebrity defamation cases, E. Jean Carroll is suing former President Trump for statements he made after she accused him of sexual assault. In a 2019 book and excerpt in New York magazine, Carroll, a longtime advice columnist for Elle magazine, accused Trump of sexual assault in the mid-1990s. Trump responded that Carroll was “totally lying” and not his “type.” Carroll sued Trump for defamation, claiming his statements had harmed her reputation. But Carroll—like all public figure defamation plaintiffs—has an uphill battle before her. To succeed, Carroll will have to prove that Trump’s statements were false, and—because Carroll is a public figure—she will also have to show that Trump acted with “actual malice.” The actual malice standard often proves to be too high a threshold for most public figures to cross, and most cases are lost on that prong—regardless of whether the statement was false. In fact, Johnny Depp was one of the few public figures in recent years to win a defamation suit.

So, what would it mean if the actual malice requirement was rescinded?

The seminal decision in New York Times Company v. Sullivan and its progeny are the backbone of defamation law in this country. These cases hold that public officials and public figures claiming defamation must prove that the allegedly defamatory statement was made, “with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.” In other words, with “actual malice.” On the other hand, a private figure, or one who has not sought out the limelight, need only show the false statement was made negligently. Prior to Sullivan, all plaintiffs fell under the negligence standard.

Public figures who must meet this “actual malice” standard fall into two categories: (1) all-purpose public figures, with “pervasive fame or notoriety,” like Johnny Depp; and (2) limited-purpose public figures, like Carroll, who, in the words of Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., achieve their status by “thrust[ing] themselves to the forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved.” The Court rationalized that both categories of public figures have “invite[d] attention and comment.” Moreover, because “public figures enjoy “greater access to the channels of effective communication” than private individuals, they are better able to “contradict the lie or correct the error.”

In today’s age of social media, do these justifications still hold true? When Sullivan and its progeny came down, there was a clear delineation between public and private figures. Typically, public figures had media access, and private figures did not. Today’s social media landscape muddles that line. We are all just one post, tweet, or TikTok away from becoming public figures.

In 2019, in a case strikingly similar to Carroll’s, the Supreme Court declined to review a defamation case filed by Kathrine McKee against Bill Cosby. In 2014, McKee publicly accused Cosby of forcibly raping her 40 years earlier. In response, Cosby’s attorney authored and subsequently leaked an allegedly defamatory letter. Excerpts of the letter were disseminated via the Internet and published by news outlets around the world. McKee argued that the letter deliberately distorted her personal background to “damage her reputation for truthfulness and honesty, and further to embarrass, harass, humiliate, intimidate, and shame” her. Applying Sullivan and its progeny, the Court concluded because McKee had “‘thrust’ herself to the ‘forefront’” of the public controversy over “sexual assault allegations implicating Cosby,” she was a “limited-purpose public figure” who needed to show actual malice—regardless of whether the statements about her were false.

In a lone dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas noted that “in an appropriate case, [the Court] should reconsider the precedents” requiring public figures to satisfy an actual-malice standard. Justice Thomas later double-downed on his proffer in his dissents in Berisha v. Lawson, and most recently in Coral Ridge Ministries Media, Inc. v. Southern Poverty Law Center. In Berisha, pointing to the shift in the media landscape since Sullivan, Justice Neil Gorsuch joined Justice Thomas in calling to review the Sullivan decision, noting our new media world “facilitates the spread of disinformation.”

According to these Justices, in recent years Sullivan has become less of a shield and more of a sword. The “actual malice” standard allows spreaders of conspiracy theories, false accusations, and fake news to be virtually untouchable. In an era where misinformation spreads like wildfire, has the actual malice standard allowed journalists to become sloppy and irresponsible? Under this legal standard a journalist is better off printing a story without fact-checking. In fact, failing to thoroughly investigate, standing alone, does not prove actual malice. If the Court abolished that standard, public figures would be like every other defamation plaintiff and would only need to show that the false statement was made carelessly. In other words, instead of the defendant knowingly printing misinformation, a plaintiff would only need to show that the defendant didn’t bother checking if the information was true or false before making it.

Under this precedent, for years reporters, and individuals alike have been shielded from consequences of publishing falsehoods about public figures. Removing the “actual malice” standard would have sweeping effects on journalists and news platforms, and would make reputable news organizations more vulnerable to attack and open to further scrutiny. But responsible journalists would still remain protected. Truth remains an absolute defense to a defamation claim.

Between 2018 and 2020 the number of defamation suits filed increased by 30%. With “fake news” on the rise, more individuals falling into the “public figure” category, and technology moving at warp speed, the Court may have no choice but to rethink Sullivan. While it is unlikely that that 50 years of settled precedent would be overturned, Sullivan just might, at the very least, be revisited.

Article By Melissa Sarsten Polito of Epstein Becker & Green, P.C.

For more litigation and legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Is The End Of FINRA Drawing Nigh?

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, aka FINRA, is a non-profit Delaware corporation. It was formed in 2007 by the combination of the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. and the regulatory arm of the New York Stock Exchange, Inc. FINRA is a self-regulatory organization that primarily regulates securities broker-dealers.

Professor Benjamin P. Edwards recently reported that a complaint has been filed in Florida challenging the constitutionality of FINRA. The lawsuit filed by two broker-dealers alleges:

However, FINRA’s current structure and operations, particularly in light of the transformation of the organization over the course of the last two decades, contravene the separation of powers, violate the Appointments Clause of the United States Constitution (the “Constitution”) and constitute an impermissible delegation of powers. Because it purports to be a private entity, FINRA is unaccountable to the President of the United States (the “President,” or “POTUS”), lacks transparency, and operates in contravention of the authority under which it was formed. It utilizes its own in-house tribunals in a manner contrary to Article III and the Seventh Amendment of the Constitution and deprives entities and individuals of property
without due process of law.

The plaintiffs are seeking, among other things, declaratory and injunctive relief.

For more Finance Legal News, click here to visit the National Law Review

Chamber of Commerce Challenges CFPB Anti-Bias Focus Concerning AI

The end of last month the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the American Bankers Association and other industry groups (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed suit in Texas federal court challenging the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (“CFPB”) update this year to the Unfair, Deceptive, or Abusive Acts or Practices section of its examination manual to include discrimination. Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, et al v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, et al., Case No. 6:22-cv-00381 (E.D. Tex.)

By way of background, the Consumer Financial Protection Act, which is Title X of the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act (the “Act”), prohibits providers of consumer financial products or services or a service provider from engaging in any unfair, deceptive or abusive act or practice (“UDAAP”). The Act also provides the CFPB with rulemaking and enforcement authority to “prevent unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices in connection with any transaction with a consumer for a consumer financial product or service, or the offering of a consumer financial product or service.” See, e.g., https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/cfpb_unfair-deceptive-abusive-acts-practices-udaaps_procedures.pdf. In general, the Act provides that an act or practice is unfair when it causes or is likely to cause substantial injury to consumers, which is not reasonably avoidable by consumers, and the injury is not outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers or to competition.

The CFPB earlier this spring published revised examination guidelines on unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts and practices, or UDAAPs. Importantly, this set forth a new position from the CFPB, that discrimination in the provision of consumer financial products and services can itself be a UDAAP. This was a development that was surprising to many providers of financial products and services. The CFPB also released an updated exam manual that outlined its position regarding how discriminatory conduct may qualify as a UDAAP in consumer finance. Additionally, the CFPB in May 2022 additionally published a Consumer Financial Protection Circular to remind the public of creditors’ adverse action notice requirements under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (“ECOA”). In the view of the CFPB, creditors cannot use technologies (include algorithmic decision making) if it means they are unable to provide required explanations under the ECOA.

In July 2022, the Chamber and others called on the CFPB to rescind the update to the manual. This included, among other arguments raised in a white paper supporting their position, that in conflating the concepts of “unfairness” and “discrimination,” the CFPB ignores the Act’s text, structure, and legislative history which discusses “unfairness” and “discrimination” as two separate concepts and defines “unfairness” without mentioning discrimination

The Complaint filed this fall raises three claims under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) in relation to the updated manual as well as others. The Complaint contends that ultimately it is consumers that will suffer as a result of the CFPB’s new position, as “[t]hese amendments to the manual harm Plaintiffs’ members by imposing heavy compliance costs that are ultimately passed down to consumers in the form of higher prices and reduced access to products.”

The litigation process started by Plaintiffs in this case will be time consuming (a response to the Complaint is not expected from Defendants until December). In the meantime, entities in the financial sector should be cognizant of the CFPB’s new approach and ensure that their compliance practices appropriately mitigate risk, including in relation to algorithmic decision making and AI. As always, we will keep you up to date with the latest news on this litigation.

For more Consumer Finance Legal News, click here to visit the National Law Review

Supreme Court Questions Whether Highly Compensated Oil Rig Worker Is Overtime Exempt

On October 12, 2022, the Supreme Court of the United States heard oral arguments in a case regarding whether an oil rig worker who performed supervisory duties and was paid more than $200,000 per year on a day rate basis is exempt from the overtime requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

The case is especially significant for employers that pay exempt employees on a day rate. It could have a major impact on the oil and gas industry in the way that it recruits, staffs, and compensates employees who work on offshore oil rigs and at remote oil and gas work sites. In addition, depending on how the Supreme Court rules, its decision could have much broader implications.

During the arguments in Helix Energy Solutions Group, Inc. v. Hewitt, the justices questioned whether, despite the employee’s high earnings, he was eligible for overtime compensation because he was paid by the day and not on a weekly salary basis. There is no express statutory requirement that an employee be paid on a “salary basis” to be exempt from overtime requirements, but such a requirement has long been included in the regulations issued by the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) applicable to the FLSA’s white-collar exemptions. Notably, Justice Brett Kavanaugh suggested during the arguments that the regulations may be in conflict with the text of FLSA, although Helix did not raise this issue in its petition for certiorari.

Background

The case involves an oil rig “toolpusher,” an oilfield term for a rig or worksite supervisor, who managed twelve to fourteen other employees, was paid a daily rate of $963, and earned more than $200,000 annually. Between December 2014 and August 2017, when Michael Hewitt was discharged for performance reasons, he worked twenty-eight-day “hitches” on an offshore oil rig where he would work twelve-hour shifts each day, sometimes working eighty-four hours in a week. After his discharge, Hewitt filed suit alleging that he was improperly classified as exempt and therefore was entitled to overtime pay. The district court ruled in favor of Helix.

In September 2021, a divided (12-6) en banc panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that Hewitt was not exempt from the FLSA because his payment on a day-rate basis did “not constitute payment on a salary basis” for purposes of the highly compensated employee (HCE) exemption that is found in the FLSA regulations.

The Fifth Circuit further concluded that the employer’s day-rate pay plan did not qualify as the equivalent of payment on a salary basis under another FLSA regulation because the guaranteed pay for any workweek did not have “a reasonable relationship” to the total income earned. In other words, the court found that the employee was not exempt because the $963 he earned per day was not reasonably related to the $3,846 the employee earned on average each week.

Oral Arguments

Oral arguments at the Supreme Court focused on the interplay between the DOL’s HCE regulation, 29 C.F.R. § 541.601, and another DOL regulation, 29 C.F.R. § 541.604(b), which states that an employer will not violate the salary basis requirement under certain limited circumstances even if the employee’s earnings are computed on an hourly, daily, or shift basis.

At the time of Hewitt’s employment, the HCE exemption required an employee to be paid at least $455 per week on a “salary or fee basis” and to earn at least $100,000 in total annual compensation. Those threshold amounts have since been increased to $684 per week and $107,432 per year.

The other regulation, 29 C.F.R. § 541.604(b), states that an employee whose earnings are “computed on an hourly, a daily or a shift basis” may still be classified as exempt if the “employment arrangement also includes a guarantee of at least the minimum weekly required amount paid on a salary basis regardless of the number of hours, days or shifts worked, and a reasonable relationship exists between the guaranteed amount and the amount actually earned. The reasonable relationship test will be met if the weekly guarantee is roughly equivalent to the employee’s usual earnings at the assigned hourly, daily, or shift rate for the employee’s normal scheduled workweek.”

Hewitt earned double the minimum total compensation level for the HCE exemption. Since the minimum salary level for the exemption was only $455 per week, and Hewitt was guaranteed that he would be paid at least $963 per week for each week he worked at least one day, Helix argued that he was exempt from the FLSA’s overtime requirements because the HCE exemption was completely self-contained and to be applied without regard to other regulations, including the “salary basis” test and the minimum guarantee regulation. Hewitt argued that the HCE exemption required compliance with either the “salary basis” test or the minimum guarantee regulation since he was admittedly paid on a day rate basis.

However, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson suggested that it was not that simple. Justice Jackson said the question of salary basis is more about the “predictability and regularity of the payment” for each workweek. “What he has to know is how much is coming in at a regular clip so that he can get a babysitter, so that he can hire a nanny, so that he can pay his mortgage,” Justice Jackson stated. Justice Jackson echoed the language of the salary basis test requiring that an exempt employee be paid a predetermined amount for any week in which she performed any work.

Similarly, Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked Helix, “so what you’re asking us to do is take an hourly wage earner and take them out of 604, which is the only provision that deals with someone who’s not paid on a salary basis.” Justice Sotomayor additionally raised the FLSA’s goal of “preventing overwork and the dangers of overwork.”

In contrast, Justice Clarence Thomas suggested that Hewitt’s high annual compensation relative to the average worker is a strong indication that he was paid on a salary basis and should be exempt. “The difficulty is just, for the average person looking at it, when someone makes over $200,000 a year, they normally think of that as an indication that it’s a salary,” Justice Thomas stated.

Justice Kavanaugh asked if the issue of whether the DOL regulations conflict with the FLSA is being litigated in the courts. He said, “it seems a pretty easy argument to say, oh, by the way, or maybe, oh, let’s start with the fact that the regs [sic] are inconsistent with the statute and the regs [sic] are, therefore, just invalid across the board to the extent they refer to salary.” He further stated, “if the statutory argument is not here, I’m sure someone’s going to raise it because it’s strong.”

Key Takeaways

It is difficult to predict how the Supreme Court will rule in this case. A decision that requires strict adherence to the regulation’s reasonable relationship test, even when the minimum daily pay far exceeds the minimum weekly salary threshold, would have a significant negative impact on the manner in which certain industries compensate their workers. It also could lead to even more litigation by highly compensated employees, many of whom make more money without receiving overtime pay than what many people who currently are paid overtime compensation make.

Depending upon its breadth, a decision that the regulations are in conflict with the statutory text of the FLSA could provide a roadmap for additional challenges to other parts of the regulations. This could have a wide-ranging impact, as the DOL currently is in the process of preparing a proposal to revise its FLSA regulations. Then again, if a future litigant takes up Justice Kavanaugh’s invitation to challenge whether the salary regulations are overbroad compared to the language of the FLSA, the current effort to revise the regulations regarding exemptions for executive, administrative, and professional employees may be moot.

Article By Andrew P. Burnside, Steven F. Pockrass, and Zachary V. Zagger of Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.

For more supreme court and litigation legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

First BIPA Trial Results in $228M Judgment for Plaintiffs

Businesses defending class actions under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) have struggled to defeat claims in recent years, as courts have rejected a succession of defenses.

We have been following this issue and have previously reported on this trend, which continued last week in the first BIPA class action to go to trial. The Illinois federal jury found that BNSF Railway Co. violated BIPA, resulting in a $228 million award to a class of more than 45,000 truck drivers.

Named plaintiff Richard Rogers filed suit in Illinois state court in April 2019, and BNSF removed the case to the US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Plaintiff alleged on behalf of a putative class of BNSF truck drivers that BNSF required the drivers to provide biometric identifiers in the form of fingerprints and hand geometry to access BNSF’s facilities. The lawsuit alleged BNSF violated BIPA by (i) failing to inform class members their biometric identifiers or information were being collected or stored prior to collection, (ii) failing to inform class members of the specific purpose and length of term for which the biometric identifiers or information were being collected, and (iii) failing to obtain informed written consent from class members prior to collection.

In October 2019, the court rejected BNSF’s legal defenses that the class’s BIPA claims were preempted by three federal statutes governing interstate commerce and transportation: the Federal Railroad Safety Act, the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act, and the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act. The court held that BIPA’s regulation of how BNSF obtained biometric identifiers or information did not unreasonably interfere with federal regulation of rail transportation, motor carrier prices, routes, or services, or safety and security of railroads.

Throughout the case, including at trial, BNSF also argued it should not be held liable where the biometric data was collected by its third-party contractor, Remprex LLC, which BNSF hired to process drivers at the gates of BNSF’s facilities. In March 2022, the court denied BNSF’s motion for summary judgment, pointing to evidence that BNSF employees were also involved in registering drivers in the biometric systems and that BNSF gave direction to Remprex regarding the management and use of the systems. The court concluded (correctly, as it turned out) that a jury could find that BNSF, not just Remprex, had violated BIPA.

The case proceeded to trial in October 2022 before US District Judge Matthew Kennelly. At trial, BNSF continued to argue it should not be held responsible for Remprex’s collection of drivers’ fingerprints. Plaintiff’s counsel argued BNSF could not avoid liability by pleading ignorance and pointing to a third-party contractor that BNSF controlled. Following a five-day trial and roughly one hour of deliberations, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the class, finding that BNSF recklessly or intentionally violated BIPA 45,600 times. The jury did not calculate damages. Rather, because BIPA provides for $5,000 in liquidated damages for every willful or reckless violation (and $1,000 for every negligent violation), Judge Kennelly applied BIPA’s damages provision, which resulted in a judgment of $228 million in damages. The judgment does not include attorneys’ fees, which plaintiff is entitled to and will inevitably seek under BIPA.

While an appeal will almost certainly follow, the BNSF case serves as a stark reminder of the potential exposure companies face under BIPA. Businesses that collect biometric data must ensure they do so in compliance with BIPA and other biometric privacy regulations. Where BIPA claims have been asserted, companies should promptly seek outside counsel to develop a legal strategy for a successful resolution.

For more Privacy and Cybersecurity Legal News, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Supreme Court Takes Up FLSA High Earners Exemption

On October 12, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case that considers whether a supervisor who earned over $200,000 annually may still be eligible for overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The case centers on the interpretation of the regulatory scheme surrounding highly compensated employees and their exemption status under the FLSA.

The Plaintiff in the case was a worker in a supervisory role on an oil rig and his compensation was based on a daily rate. The plaintiff argued that his daily rate of pay did not constitute a salary. Prior to the Supreme Court, the Fifth Circuit en banc agreed with the Plaintiff and found that he was not paid a salary such that he was not an exempt employee under the FLSA.

This case has implications for how employers will pay workers, and whether there is potential exposure for overtime claims, even for highly compensated employees.

For more Labor and Employment legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

4 Frequently Asked Questions About MSO Investigations and 3 Defense Strategies

In the last decade, Management Services Organizations, or MSOs, became popular service providers and investment tools for the medical and health care field. Unfortunately, the way some MSOs are structured, they can violate several important laws against healthcare fraud, like the Stark Law or the Anti-Kickback Statute.

Because this is such a novel issue in the medical field, lots of healthcare providers have questions about it. Some want to know how they can defend themselves if they get accused of wrongdoing for their activity with an MSO.

Dr. Nick Oberheiden is an MSO investigation lawyer at Oberheiden P.C. Here are some questions that he frequently gets asked and a few defense strategies that can help.

FAQs About MSO Investigations

1. What are MSOs?

An MSO is a company that provides administrative services to medical professionals. They can help healthcare providers with their:

Human resources
Operations
Coding and billing services
Office space management
Compliance
Contract management

Healthcare companies can either contract with an MSO to provide these services or can outright sell the administrative wing of their practice to an MSO so they can focus on the medical side of their business.

2. Why are MSOs Problematic?

MSO arrangements can become legally problematic when they act as an investment tool for medical professionals. Physicians could buy an ownership stake in an MSO that provided services to, say, a pharmacy. Those physicians could then begin referring patients to that same pharmacy.

In theory, that referral is going to a company – the pharmacy – that neither the physician nor his or her immediate family members have a financial interest in. In reality, though, the distinction gets blurred if the MSO – and therefore the physician – makes money off the referral. This can arguably amount to a kickback, which is unlawful.

3. Is Law Enforcement Actually Looking Into MSOs?

Yes, the justice department or the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has recently begun investigating MSOs that appears to be a medium for illegal kickbacks from one healthcare provider to a referring physician.

Together with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General (HHS-OIG), the DOJ has taken the position that MSOs that are only indirectly recouping physicians for referrals is enough to violate anti-kickback laws. In one case, the agencies are pursuing False Claims Act (31 U.S.C. § 3729) violations in addition to violations of the Stark Law (42 U.S.C. § 1395nn) and the Anti-Kickback Statute (42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7b).

However, not all MSOs have come under the scrutiny of federal law enforcement. The DOJ has not declared a blanket rule that all MSOs are unlawful. Instead, it is only targeting those that show the signs of potential healthcare fraud.

4. What are the Potential Penalties for Investing in the Wrong MSO?

At this stage, it is hard to tell. MSOs are still a new development, and we are only seeing the very first charges getting filed against physicians who invest in the “wrong” MSOs. Courts have not yet ruled whether MSOs can facilitate a kickback or amount to a false claim.

If courts do go along with the DOJ’s interpretation of the law, then physicians can face steep penalties for sending business to another healthcare facility that contracts with an MSO that they own or invest in.

The Anti-Kickback Statute is a criminal law that carries up to five years in prison for a conviction, as well as fines of up to $25,000 and program exclusion. The Stark Law is a civil law that, while it does not carry criminal sanctions or jail time, does impose:

Denial of payments provided
Disgorgement of ill-gotten gains
Civil penalties of up to $15,000 for each violation
Treble damages
Program exclusion

Defense Strategies for Investigations into Your MSO

If you do have an ownership stake in an MSO and are concerned about a potential investigation, or if you are interested in investing in one of these new companies and want to do it right, there are several things that you can do. While every case is unique, here are three defense strategies and compliance procedures that MSO investigation attorney Dr. Nick Oberheiden often recommends considering.

1. Look for Signs That an MSO is Problematic

Not all MSOs are attracting the attention of federal law enforcement. Instead, it is the ones that do not comply with the requirements of anti-kickback statutes and illegal referrals.

Some signs that an MSO is lacking in that department include:

A lack of a compliance officer in the company
No training regarding important laws like HIPAA, the Stark Law, or the Anti-Kickback Statute
The MSO is paid on a percentage basis, rather than through a flat fee (payments should be at fair market value rates)
The MSO charges unreasonably high service fees
There are incentives for investing physicians to refer clients to the company

All of these are strong signs that the MSO is at risk of civil or even criminal action for healthcare fraud and illegal referrals. Unfortunately, many of these signs also give an investing physician the power to increase his or her return on the investment – a feature that makes the investment seem especially lucrative.

2. Tighten Up the Compliance

If you are invested in an MSO and suddenly see proof that it was too good to be true, you are not powerless. You are a partial owner, after all. You can push the company to tighten up its compliance with anti-kickback laws. In the best cases, this can successfully protect you and avoid scrutiny from law enforcement. Even if it does not, though, it can reduce the restitution that you can be made to pay, and the efforts to fix the MSO can be used to show your good intentions.

3. Stress the Distance Between an MSO’s Ownership and Its Clients

At this point, we still have not seen whether law enforcement’s interpretation of the law will get adopted by a court. Until we know for sure that an indirect payment is enough for anti-kickback liability, a strong defense should be that the MSO’s ownership was too far removed from the MSO’s clients to amount to a violation of the law.

As Dr. Nick Oberheiden, an MSO investigation attorney at Oberheiden P.C., says, “The law is still very much in flux at this point. Kickbacks are generally seen to be direct payments for referrals, and the whole point of the MSO investment opportunity was to avoid that exact setup.”

Article By Dr. Nick Oberheiden of Oberheiden P.C.

For more healthcare and health investigations legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Top Legal Industry News Updates for Fall 2022: Law Firm Hirings, Legal Industry Recognition, Women in Law, and More

Welcome back to another edition of the National Law Review’s legal news roundup! Please read on for the latest updates in law firm hiring and expansion, pro bono efforts, industry awards and recognition, and a spotlight on women in law! Additionally, be sure to check out the latest episode of our Legal News Reach podcast: The Perfect Storm: Law Firm Marketing & Business Development Budgeting with Beth Cuzzone, Global Practice Leader of Intapp.

Law Firm Hiring and Expansion

Kristian R. Sullivan has joined the Patent Prosecution & Litigation practice group at Womble Bond Dickinson. Based in Houston, Mr. Sullivan has a great deal of experience in intellectual property services, including the drafting of IP-related agreements, performing freedom-to-operate analyses, and the securing of important IP assets. He has worked across a great number of industries, such as energy, automotive, technology, and construction.

“The Houston economic market has a high concentration of clients in the advanced manufacturing and oil/gas industries. As such, there is a demand for patent prosecution attorneys with mechanical engineering experience to do this work,” said Jeff Whittle, Womble Bond Dickinson’s Houston Office Managing Partner and Energy Sector Co-Lead. “Kristian’s strong mechanical experience, including in oil and gas, will be a boost for the Houston office and add further depth to the firm’s Patent Prosecution & Litigation group and growing Energy sector team.”

Sidley Austin LLP has added James Lu as a Partner in the Corporate practice group. Mr. Lu, who focuses his practice on representing venture capital and private equity investors at leading companies, is based in the firm’s Century City office. He has a great deal of experience in many areas, primarily public and private securities offerings, joint ventures, mergers and acquisitions, and cross-border transactions.

“James is the trusted advisor that every client — and law firm — wants on its team. He combines market leading intelligence from two continents with a range of transactional expertise,” said Dan Clivner, co-leader of the firm’s global M&A and Private Equity practice. “Many of our partners have worked with James and couldn’t be happier to call him ‘our partner.’”

Danette R. Edwards, former Senior Counsel at the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, has joined Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP’s Securities Litigation practice as a Partner. Ms. Edwards, who has vast experience leading enforcement efforts at the SEC and litigating complex cases involving anti-fraud and other securities laws, joins the firm at its office in Washington, D.C.

“Danette is a strong addition to our Securities Litigation team because she offers our clients exceptional experience on all types of SEC-related matters,” said Bruce G. Vanyo, chair of Katten‘s Securities Litigation practice. “Her impressive skill set and extraordinary background strengthens Katten’s already widely recognized reputation for defending high-stakes securities matters for some of the country’s most prestigious companies.”

Einhorn, Barbarito, Frost & Botwinick, PC has announced the addition of three new associates: Alma A. Godinez, Angelica M. Mercado, and T. Matthew Wolfe II. Ms. Godinez focuses her practice on personal injury matters involving medical malpractice, products liability, and other accidents. Ms. Mercado practices family and matrimonial law, with experience drafting motions and emergent applications related to matrimonial and non-dissolution matters. Mr. Wolfe II focuses his practice on wills, trusts, estates, and taxation matters, with a particular emphasis on topics such as family wealth transfer and preservation planning, charitable giving, and retirement planning.

“We are pleased to welcome these three exceptional young professionals to the firm and we know that their experience in several of our key practice areas will enhance our ability to serve our clients,” said Patricia M. Barbarito, Co-Managing Partner of Einhorn Barbarito.

Legal Industry Awards and Recognition

Jason Rubinstein, Partner at Gilbert LLP, has been named to the Board of Directors of the Legal Aid Society of the District of Columbia. Representing tenants facing evictions and assisting injured individuals to obtain important medical treatments, Mr. Rubinstein has made a special effort to prioritize pro bono work throughout his career. Beyond this work, at Gilbert, he has focused his practice on insurance recovery and strategic risk management.

“The work Legal Aid does for persons living in poverty in the District is unparalleled,” said Mr. Rubinstein of the honor, “and I look forward to helping to provide the leadership and legal assistance necessary to assist those in need.”

New York Law Journal recognized IMS Consulting & Expert Services as the winners of the “Best Of” 2022 award survey. They were named a Top 3 recipients in the “Best of” category for Online Jury Research Provider. Winners for this award were selected based on the results of a crafted ballot containing several dozen categories for attorneys and firm administrators to vote on.

IMS’ Vice President of Client Services, Chris Sizemore, commented, “We’re thrilled to be selected by our clients as one of New York’s top legal service providers. IMS consultants help reduce uncertainty before and at trial by understanding the psychology of the jury to identify and refine persuasive themes that will better connect with decision makers in the case—juries, judges, and arbitrators.”

On September 22, 2022, Bruno R. Marasso, partner at Romanucci & Blandin, LLC, was installed as President of the Justinian Society of Lawyers. Mr. Marasso has received numerous awards previously, including the Emerging Lawyer award by Law Bulletin Publishing Company every year since 2017, a Rising Star by Super Lawyer every year since 2018, a naming to Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch for 2021, and a naming to the list of Best Lawyers in America for 2023.

On his recent appointment, Mr. Marasso shared, “Romanucci & Blandin has a rich history in serving the Justinian Society of Lawyers and I am proud to continue it with my term as President. As Justinians, we pride ourselves in contributing to both the legal profession and to the community and I am humbled to serve in this role.” Mr. Marasso recently served as Vice President of the Justinian Society of Lawyers and focuses his practice on the areas of automobile collisions, wrongful death, premises liability, and institutional misconduct.

Diversity and Inclusion in the Field

The Arab American Foundation has selected Shumaker, Loop & Kendrick Associate Ali W. Latif for inclusion on their “40 Under 40” list for his role in empowering the national Arab American community. Ms. Latif is a trilingual Palestinian-American based in Columbus, Ohio who specializes in business, immigration, and environmental law. Prior to joining Shumaker, Latif owned his own firm, where he represented marginalized clients. He still prioritizes disadvantaged communities, spending hundreds of hours providing free legal services for low-income clients with the Legal Aid Society of Columbus. In 2019, he received the LASC/CBA/CBF New Attorney Pro Bono Award.

Shumaker Partner and Diversity and Inclusion Committee Co-Chair Cheri Budzynski says, “We are excited that Ali has the opportunity to be celebrated for his passion and leadership in connecting and empowering Arab Americans. As part of the firm’s commitment to diversity and inclusion, we recognize that our legal system needs to adapt to represent diversity and the people of our nation.”

Corporate Counsel Women of Color has chosen Foley & Lardner Senior Counsel Lauren Champaign to receive their “Next Gen Emerging Millennial Leader” award, which celebrates young attorneys with exceptional legal talent and community orientation. A commercial litigator specializing in securities, product liability, antitrust, and consumer finance, Ms. Champaign also co-founded Foley’s Racial Justice and Equity Practice Group.

Ms. Champaign has previously volunteered with numerous legal aid organizations, such as the D.C. Legal Aid Society’s Housing Division, and served as the Deputy GOTV Director for President Obama’s Philadelphia re-election campaign. There, she contributed to increased voter turnout and eventual victory, and as a Regional Field Director for Obama for America, she was featured in the Washington Post and PBS Now for her organizing work in South Carolina and Chicago. Ms. Champaign and her five fellow awardees will be feted at an October 7^th ceremony during Corporate Counsel’s Career Strategies Conference.

Barnes & Thornburg Partner Robyn Maguire has been included on Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly’s “Top Women of Law” list, which showcases women leading the legal field through education, mentorship, and innovation. Ms. Maguire practices complex civil litigation in Boston, where she manages product liability, real estate, and land use disputes.

Ms. Maguire is an active member of her local pro bono and volunteer community, assisting clients with housing and asylum matters and submitting amicus briefs to the U.S. Supreme Court and U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit for issues related to immigration and employment discrimination. She chairs the Town of Hingham Zoning Board of Appeals and is an executive committee and board member for Lawyers for Civil Rights. She has previously been recognized as a “Rising Star” and “Super Lawyer” in Massachusetts Super Lawyers and on the “Top Ten Verdicts” list in Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly. Maguire and her fellow nominees will be profiled in the magazine’s November issue and honored at an awards ceremony.

Article By Crissonna Tennison, Shelby Garrett, and Chandler Ford of The National Law Review / The National Law Forum LLC

For more business of law legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Category: Litigation

Not Ship Shape: SEC Sues Retired Chief Petty Officer for Fraudulent Offerings to Navy-Related Victims

Like this: