Litigation Archives - Page 23 of 107 - The National Law Forum

BREAKING: Supreme Court Reverses California Court of Appeal in Viking River Cruises v. Moriana

On June 15, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision on Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana (Case No. 20-1573) reversing the California Court of Appeal’s decision to affirm the denial of Viking’s motion to compel arbitration Moriana’s “individual” PAGA claim and to dismiss her other PAGA claims.

As previously reported, the question presented in Viking River Cruises involved whether the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) preempts the California Supreme Court’s decision in Iskanian v. CLS Transp. Los Angeles, LLC, 58 Cal.4th 380 (2014), which invalidates contractual waivers of representative claims under California’s Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”).

In a majority opinion authored by Justice Alito, the Court held that while Iskanian’s prohibition on “wholesale waivers” of PAGA claims is not preempted by the FAA, Iskanian’s rule that PAGA actions cannot be divided into “individual” and “non-individual claims” is preempted.

Applying this holding to the parties, the Court held that Viking was entitled to enforce the parties’ arbitration agreement insofar as it mandated arbitration of Moriana’s individual PAGA claim. As for Moriana’s non-individual PAGA claims, because PAGA itself “provides no mechanism to enable a court to adjudicate non-individual PAGA claims once an individual claim has been committed to a separate proceeding,” Moriana lacks “statutory standing” under PAGA to litigate her “non-individual” claims separately in state court. Accordingly, “the correct course is to dismiss her remaining claims.”

Article By Timothy Kim and Michele J. Beilke of Hunton Andrews Kurth

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

June 2022 Legal Industry News and Highlights: Law Firm Hiring, Industry Recognition, and New Diversity and Inclusion Efforts

Happy Summertime from the National Law Review! We hope you are staying safe, healthy, and cool. Read on below for the latest news in the legal industry, including law firm hirings and expansion, legal industry awards and recognition, and diversity, equity, and justice efforts in the field.

Law Firm Hiring and Expansion

Michael Best & Friedrich LLP has added Brett R. Valentyn as Senior Counsel to the firm’s Corporate and Transactional Practice Group. Mr. Valentyn, a well-practiced mergers, acquisitions, and corporate attorney, has a wide array of experience in areas such as private equity, corporate governance, and transactional and contractual matters. He has advised clients across industries in buy-side and sell-side transactions for both small-cap and large-cap companies.

“Brett’s successful history in advising clients on transactional matters has him well-positioned to flourish,” said Jason Rogers, Chair of the Corporate & Transactional Practice Group. “Brett’s impressive background in transactional law will only strengthen our already deep bench of talented and business-minded private equity and M&A attorneys. I’m confident Brett will make a wonderful addition to our Corporate & Transactional Practice Group.”

Corporate attorney Eric D. Statman has joined the Toxic Torts practice group at Goldberg Segalla. A 20-year veteran of complex commercial litigation, Mr. Statman is poised to continue his environmental, product liability, and mass tort practice out of the firm’s Manhattan office.

Previously, Mr. Statman has aided clients across a variety of industries, resolving major disputes with minimum impact to corporations through mediation or litigation, as well as negotiating a large number of group settlements. Notably, he has represented asbestos defendants as local and national counsel, helping to develop strategies to minimize exposure.

Michael J. Ligorano has rejoined Norris McLaughlin’s Real Estate, Finance, and Land Use Group and Immigration Practice Group after nine years as the Diocese of Metuchen’s General Counsel. Ligorano is an established New Jersey land use and immigration practitioner with experience evaluating undeveloped land, as well as acquiring, developing, and financing municipal projects around the state. In addition to city planning, Ligorano has served as a legal resource for multinational businesses who wish to enter the United States, assisting in the navigation of the US immigration process. He is the former supervising attorney for the Diocese of Metuchen Catholic Charities Immigration Program, and a member of the American Immigration Lawyers Association.

“Michael has a deep understanding of our firm and of the local landscape. He is not only one of the state’s foremost land use and commercial real estate attorneys, but as an experienced immigration counsel will help make ours arguably the best immigration practice in the region,” said David C. Roberts, Chair of Norris McLaughlin. “We are pleased to have Michael at the firm and look forward to his leadership and cross-practice collaboration.”

Five partners and eight associates have joined the Chicago office of the MG+M The Law Firm. The Asbestos Litigation Practice welcomes Partners Timothy Krippner, Michael Cantieri, Christopher Triska, William Irwin, and Daniel Powell, as well as Associates Alex Blair, Elizabeth Grande, Aerial Henderson, Dragana Kovacevic, Cindy Medina-Cervantes, Emily Sample, and Andrea Walsh. The new members bring with them decades of combined high-stakes complex commercial and liability defense experience.

“MG+M enthusiastically welcomes this exceptional team of professionals to our firm,” commented MG+M Chairperson and Partner John B. Manning. “We have collaborated with this group of lawyers for years and look forward to their enhancement of our brand as a go-to firm for high-stakes litigation matters in Illinois, the Midwest and nationally.”

Legal Industry Awards and Recognition

The Environmental Practice Group at Greenberg Traurig, LLP has been recognized in the Legal 500 United States 2022 Guide. 31 attorneys across 12 offices in the US were included in the list, highlighting the firm’s expertise in areas such as environmental regulation, environmental litigation, energy regulation, mass torts, and Native American law.

Of particular note, shareholder David B. Weinstein was recognized in the U.S. Guide as a Leading Lawyer in the category of Dispute Resolution > Product Liability, Mass Tort, and Class Action – Defense: Toxic Tort. Likewise, shareholder Troy A. Eid was recognized as a Leading Lawyer for Industry Focus > Native American Law.

Canadian law firm Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP was recognized six times at the 2022 Benchmark Canada Awards, including three separate “Firm of the Year” Awards. Specifically, the firm was named the Competition Litigation Firm of the Year for the first time, the White Collar Crime/Enforcement Firm of the Year for the third consecutive year, and the Arbitration Firm of the Year for the fifth consecutive year.

In addition, Blakes was granted the Impact Case of the Year award for work on Sherman Estate v. Donovan, led by partner Iris Fischer. Partners Michael Barrack and Melanie Baird also received the Hall of Fame Award and the IP Litigator of the Year award, respectively.

Thomson Reuters has named six Stubbs Alderton & Markiles attorneys as “Rising Stars” on the Southern California Super Lawyers list. The members of the firm that have been selected are listed here:

Attorneys selected for the Super Lawyers list demonstrate a high degree of personal and professional achievement, as well as a significant level of peer recognition. The list selects only 2.5 percent of under-40 lawyers in the Southern California area for the “Rising Stars” designation, making decisions based on peer nomination, independent research, and peer evaluation.

Two Womble Bond Dickinson (US) attorneys have been ranked in the 2022 edition of Chambers USA. Cristin Cowles, Ph.D., an experienced patent prosecution and patent lifecycle management attorney, has been ranked in Intellectual Property. Jed Nosal, a practiced state regulatory oversight, enforcement, and compliance attorney, has been ranked in Energy & Natural Resources.

Additionally, the firm’s Massachusetts-based Energy & Natural Resources practice has been recognized by Chambers USA as an industry leader. In total, 60 Womble Bond Dickinson attorneys and 22 state-level practice areas have been recognized in the 2022 edition of Chambers USA.

Diversity, Equity, and Justice Efforts

Chris Slaughter, CEO of Steptoe & Johnson PLLC, affirmed the firm’s commitment to diversity and inclusion by taking the Leaders at the Front Initiative Pledge with the Leadership Council on Legal Diversity. Nationally recognized for its strengths in energy law, business, labor and employment, and litigation, Steptoe & Johnson has a longstanding commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion, with efforts such as the D Cubed Program, the Standing Diversity & Inclusion Committee, and ongoing diversity recruitment and retention efforts.

The Leaders at the Front Initiative is a movement intended to forefront the conversation about diversity and inclusion for major organizations and law firms. It requires an organization to act on their pledge by creating an action plan that turns their words into measurable actions, with the end goal of helping a new diverse generation of attorneys obtain positions of leadership and in return create a national legal industry that is diverse and inclusive.

Three Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP attorneys have been recognized by the Virginia Access to Justice Commission for their outstanding pro bono services. Lee-Ann C. Brown, an associate at the firm, has been named the 2020-2021 Pro Bono Service Champion, an honor reserved for top Virginia attorneys reporting the highest number of pro bono hours. Douglas L. Patin and Henry C. Su have likewise been named 2020-2021 Pro Bono Service Honor Roll members for contributing over 40 hours of pro bono service.

The Virginia Access to Justice Commission was established in 2013 by the state’s Supreme Court to promote equal access to justice, with a particular emphasis on the civil needs of Virginia residents. The bar’s participation in pro bono service has since become a priority for the Commission, connecting judges, lawyers, and legal aid and social services to assist in making the courts more accessible for all.

“These attorneys have made tremendous strides in providing pro bono service and working to promote access to justice in the Virginia community, and we are proud of their significant contributions,” said Bradley Pro Bono Counsel Tiffany M. Graves.

Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP has announced the establishment of the HuntonAK Pathfinders Scholarship Program, a 10-week, paid Summer Clerkship for outstanding first-generation 2L law students. Stemming from the winning submission at the firm’s annual “Hackathon,” a brain-storming competition for enhancing diversity and inclusion in the legal industry, the scholarship seeks to attract students to the private practice of law while providing valuable work and mentorship experiences at the firm.

“Hunton Andrews Kurth is committed to making our profession more accessible to talented law students who have already demonstrated great determination by climbing the first rung of the educational mobility ladder,” said managing partner Wally Martinez. “This scholarship, strictly for first-generation students, is one of the first of its kind and we are honored to help lead the way with this effort.”

Article By Chandler Ford and Crissonna Tennison 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.

Supreme Court Declines to Resolve Circuit Split on Exercise of Personal Jurisdiction in FLSA Collective Actions

On June 6, 2022, the Supreme Court of the United States declined to hear petitions seeking review of whether federal courts may exercise personal jurisdiction over claims of nonresident plaintiffs who join Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective actions when their claims are not connected to the defendant’s activities in the forum state. The petitions sought review of rulings on the issue by the First and Sixth Circuit Courts of Appeals in Waters v. Day & Zimmermann NPS, Inc. and Canaday v. The Anthem Companies, Inc., respectively. As a result of the Supreme Court’s decision declining to hear the petitions, there remains a circuit split as to whether the Court’s 2017 ruling in Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court applies to FLSA collective actions, and employers with nationwide footprints remain subject to uncertainty depending on jurisdiction.

To date, only the First, Sixth, and Eighth Circuits have ruled on the issue. On August 17, 2021, the Sixth Circuit was the first to address the issue in Canaday. There, the Court held that federal courts may not exercise personal jurisdiction over claims of nonresident plaintiffs who join FLSA collective actions when their claims are not connected to the defendant’s activities in the forum state. Just one day later, on August 18, 2021, the Eighth Circuit came to the same conclusion in Vallone v. CJS Solutions Group, LLC.

On January 13, 2022, in Waters, the First Circuit held to the contrary, concluding that federal courts do have personal jurisdiction over claims asserted by nonresident opt-in plaintiffs.

The Significance of Bristol-Myers

The Supreme Court’s decision in Bristol-Myers provides the basis for the current circuit split. Bristol-Myers involved a mass tort action under state law for alleged defects in a blood-thinning drug, Plavix, which the company manufactured. Residents and nonresidents of California sued Bristol-Myers in California state court, alleging injuries related to the drug. The nonresident plaintiffs claimed no relationship with the forum state, nor did they purchase Plavix in California or suffer any harm from it in California. The Supreme Court reasoned that any similarity between the resident and nonresident plaintiffs’ claims was an “insufficient basis” to exercise specific jurisdiction. Unless nonresident plaintiffs could demonstrate that their claims arose out of the defendant’s contacts with the forum state, personal jurisdiction over the company did not exist, no matter “the extent of a defendant’s unconnected activities in the State.”

In ruling that the California state court lacked jurisdiction over the claims of the nonresident plaintiffs, the Supreme Court acknowledged that its holding might ultimately generate more litigation in the form of separate actions by nonresident plaintiffs in their respective states. But the Supreme Court also noted that all plaintiffs to the action could have brought a mass tort action against Bristol-Myers in New York (the company’s headquarters) or Delaware (its place of incorporation) because courts in those states would have had general personal jurisdiction over the company. Instead, the California state court could exercise only specific personal jurisdiction over the company based on its activities in the state. Notably, Bristol-Myers was limited to Rule 23 class actions, leaving lower courts to determine whether its holding applied to FLSA collective actions, which differ procedurally.

The Circuit Split

In Canaday, the Sixth Circuit reiterated the basic tenet that, pursuant to the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the question of whether a court has personal jurisdiction over a defendant depends on the defendant’s contacts with the state in which the plaintiff filed the lawsuit. Because Anthem is both incorporated and headquartered in Indiana and not otherwise “at home” in the state of Tennessee, the district court in Tennessee lacked general jurisdiction over Anthem as a defendant. At issue was whether the district court in Tennessee had specific personal jurisdiction over Anthem, and thus, whether there was a claim-specific and Anthem-specific relationship between the nonresidents’ FLSA claims and the state of Tennessee.

Applying Bristol-Myers, the Sixth Circuit held that there was not. The court found that the nonresident plaintiffs did not bring claims arising out of or relating to Anthem’s conduct in Tennessee, because Anthem neither employed nor paid the nonresident plaintiffs within the state. The Sixth Circuit went on the explain that adherence to this approach should not change the way FLSA collective actions are filed, because plaintiffs traditionally file their actions where courts have general jurisdiction, or where the conduct occurred. Of note, Sixth Circuit Judge Bernice Donald dissented in Canaday, contending that Bristol-Myers does not apply to FLSA collective actions because the Supreme Court in that case addressed only the limitations of state courts, not federal courts, in their exercise of personal jurisdiction over nonresidents.

In Waters, the First Circuit largely followed the reasoning in Judge Donald’s dissent, concluding that the Supreme Court’s decision in Bristol-Myers Squibb “rest[ed] on Fourteenth Amendment constitutional limits on state courts exercising jurisdiction over state-law claims” and thus did not control whether a federal court could exercise jurisdiction over federal claims asserted by nonresident plaintiffs. The First Circuit also observed that the plain language of Rule 4(k) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure merely concerns the service of summonses and does not “constrain[] a federal court’s power to act once a summons has been properly served, and personal jurisdiction has been established.”

Key Takeaways

The Supreme Court’s decision to deny the petitions means that employers with nationwide footprints continue to live with potentially inconsistent rulings on the question of whether a federal district court has jurisdiction to hear claims of out-of-state workers when the defendant is neither headquartered nor incorporated in the state. Canaday and Vallone stand to significantly limit the size and geographic scope of FLSA collective actions in the Sixth and Eighth Circuits, absent a district court’s exercise of general jurisdiction over a corporate defendant, while Waters permits nationwide jurisdiction in the First Circuit. For now, at least, multistate employers face continued uncertainty on the issue until courts of appeals in the remaining circuits weigh in.

Article By Maggie (Hanrahan) Santen, Monica Lacks, and Samuel H. Ottinger of Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.

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

Beyond Meat Sued Over Protein Content Claims

A proposed consumer class action lawsuit was filed against Beyond Meat, Inc. on June 10, alleging that the plant-based meat manufacturer embellished the amount of protein contained in its line of plant-based sausages, breakfast patties, meatballs, ground beef, and chicken products.
In the complaint, plaintiff Mary Yoon alleges that Beyond Meat falsely labels and advertises its products as providing “equal or superior protein” to animal-derived meat. Her claim is based on the fact that “two different U.S. laboratories have independently and separately conducted testing on a wide range of Beyond Meat products. The test results were consistent with each other: the results of both tests show that Beyond Meat products contain significantly less protein than what is stated on the product packaging.”
Plaintiff Yoon alleges that Beyond Meat’s quantitative declaration of protein and percent Daily Value (%DV) are false and misleading because the quantitative amount was calculated using the nitrogen method. According to the complaint, “the nitrogen method is not the most accurate way to describe protein content” and that “[b]y law, Beyond Meat is required to use the PDCAAS calculation for the products rather than some other less-sophisticated method.”
In opposition to plaintiff Yoon’s claims, 21 CFR 101.9(c)(7) specifically provides for two different methods to determine protein values, including the nitrogen method. The FDA recently issued a clarifying Q&A supporting the use of either method to calculate protein content (i.e., nitrogen or PDCAAS), but noted that manufacturers are still obligated to include a %DV when protein claims are made and that %DV should be adjusted for protein quality.

Article By Food and Drug Law Practice Group at Keller and Heckman LLP

For more biotech, food, and drug legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

SCOTUS Significantly Narrows Scope of 28 U.S.C. § 1782 for International Arbitrations

The United States Supreme Court’s recent decision in ZF Automotive US, Inc., et al., v. Luxshare, Ltd., No. 21-401, holds that U.S. federal courts cannot order discovery in aid of international commercial arbitrations or investor-state arbitrations. In a unanimous decision, the Court reasoned that a “foreign tribunal,” under 28 U.S.C. § 1782, “is best understood as an adjudicative body that exercises governmental authority” rather than a private body that is merely located in another country. Because the private arbitral tribunal in the ZF Automotive case did not exercise governmental authority, the Supreme Court denied discovery in aid of the proceeding under Section 1782.

The decision resolves a circuit split over whether private commercial arbitration panels should be considered “foreign or international tribunals” under 28 U.S.C. § 1782, and thus whether U.S. discovery should be allowed in such private commercial arbitrations. Section 1782 authorizes a district court to order the production of evidence “for use in a proceeding in a foreign or international tribunal.” The Fourth and Sixth Circuits have previously held that international commercial arbitrations are foreign tribunals under the statute, while the Second, Fifth, and Seventh Circuits have held that they are not. The availability of discovery under Section 1782 is a key issue for the international arbitration community because the scope of discovery allowed under Section 1782 is generally broader than any discovery allowed under institutional arbitral rules or under foreign arbitration laws.

In reaching its decision, the Court found that the word “tribunal” carries a distinctively governmental flavor. A prior version of Section 1782 covered only “judicial proceeding[s]” in any court in a foreign country, however, Congress later expanded the legislation’s scope to cover proceedings in a “foreign or international tribunal.” The Court found that while this change broadens the understanding of “tribunal” to include tribunals that are not formal courts, the term is still best understood to refer to an adjudicative body that exercises governmental authority. Under the decision, a “foreign tribunal” is a tribunal belonging to a foreign nation while an “international tribunal” is best understood as one that involves two or more nations imbued with governmental authority. Location of the tribunal or the nature of the parties to the dispute are not determinative in this interpretation.

The Court also noted that extending Section 1782 discovery to cover international arbitrations would conflict with the Federal Arbitration Act, which governs domestic arbitrations. Thus, interpreting Section 1782 as applying to international arbitration would create a “notable mismatch between foreign and domestic arbitration.”

The Court’s decision came in a consolidated case arising out of appeals in the Sixth and Second Circuits. The first case involves a dispute between Luxshare, a Hong Kong company and ZF Automotive US Inc., a Michigan-based company, over an allegedly fraudulent sales transaction. The agreement between the parties provided that all disputes would be resolved by an arbitral panel under the Arbitration Rules of the German Arbitration Institute (DIS). In preparation for bringing an arbitration, Luxshare filed an ex parte petition under Section 1782 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan seeking information from ZF Automotive and its officers. The district court granted the petition and ZF Automotive moved to quash, arguing that a panel formed under the auspices of the DIS was not a “foreign or international tribunal” under Section 1782. The district court denied the motion and the Sixth Circuit denied a stay.

The second case involves AB bankas SNORAS, a Lithuanian bank which was nationalized by Lithuanian authorities. The Fund for Protection of Investors’ Rights in Foreign States, a Russian corporation, commenced an ad hoc arbitration proceeding against Lithuania under a bilateral investment treaty that the country entered with Russia. The Fund filed a petition under Section 1782 in the district court seeking information from AlixPartners, LLP, a New York-based consulting firm, and one of its officers. AlixPartners challenged the petition, arguing that the ad hoc panel was also not a “foreign or international tribunal” under Section 1782. The district court rejected that argument in a decision that was affirmed by the Second Circuit.

The Court’s decision is likely to spark much discussion in the international arbitration community. There will likely be a significant impact on current and future international arbitrations, with parties having to consider their strategies for discovery in light of the unavailability of a critical information-gathering tool. On the other hand, for better and for worse, this decision will further streamline the international arbitration process, as many arbitral proceedings will not be delayed by related litigation over discovery in U.S. courts.

Article By Travis A. Gonyou of Binder & Schwartz

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

ERIC Files Amicus Brief Rebutting DOL Attempt to Create New Regulations in Lawsuit, Petitions US Supreme Court on Seattle Healthcare Case

Read on below for coverage of recent law firm news from McDermott Will & Emery.

ERIC Files Amicus Brief Rebutting DOL Attempt to Create New Regulations in Lawsuit

McDermott Will & Emery’s Andrew C. Liazos, Michael B. Kimberly and Charlie Seidell recently filed an amicus brief in the US Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit on behalf of the ERISA Industry Committee (ERIC). McDermott filed the brief in response to a US Department of Labor (DOL) amicus brief that advanced a novel interpretation of its regulations which, if adopted through litigation, would change longstanding procedures for benefit determinations under self-funded medical plans sponsored by large employers. The amicus brief focuses on key arguments against the DOL’s attempted regulatory reinterpretation, including that:

DOL may not rewrite its regulations outside of notice-and-comment rulemaking;
DOL’s interpretation of its own regulations is inconsistent with the plain text of the regulations;
There are good policy reasons underlying differential treatment of healthcare and disability benefits determinations; and
DOL’s interpretation of the regulations in its amicus brief is not entitled to deference under the Supreme Court decision in Kisor.

Read ERIC’s amicus brief here.

Read ERIC’s statement here.

ERIC Petitions US Supreme Court on Seattle Healthcare Case

McDermott Will & Emery’s Michael B. Kimberly, Sarah P. Hogarth and Andrew C. Liazos, are co-counsel on a petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court of the United States on behalf of the ERISA Industry Committee (ERIC). The petition calls for review of ERIC’s legal challenge to the City of Seattle’s hotel healthcare “play or pay” ordinance. The ordinance mandates hospitality employers make specified monthly healthcare expenditures for their covered local employees if their healthcare plans do not meet certain requirements. The petition demonstrates that Seattle’s ordinance is a clear attempt to control the benefits provided under medical plans in violation of the preemption provision under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (ERISA). This case is of significant national importance. Several other cities have proposed making similar changes, and complying with these types of ordinances will substantially constrain the ability of employers to control the terms of their medical plans on a uniform basis. ERIC’s petition is joined by several trade associations, including the US Chamber of Commerce, the American Benefits Council and the Retail Industry Leaders Association.

Read ERIC’s petition for writ of certiorari here.

Read ERIC’s statement here.

Article by Andrew Liazos, Michael B. Kimberly, Charlie Seidell, and Sarah P. Hogarth.

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

A Fool in Idaho; SEC Sues Idahoans for Insider Trading Scheme

In July 1993 two brothers, David and Tom Gardner, and a friend, Erik Rydholm, founded a private investment advisory firm in Alexandria, Virginia. They named that firm Motley Fool after the court jester in “As You Like It,” a play written by William Shakespeare (it is believed in 1599). The Motley Fool, or Touchstone as he is known in the play, was the only character who could speak the truth to Duke Frederick without having his head cut off. Similarly, Motley Fool, the advisory firm, sought to give investors accurate advice, even if it flew in the face of received wisdom. For example, in advance of April Fool’s Day 1994, Motley Fool issued a series of online messages promoting a non-existent sewage-disposal company. The April Fool’s Day prank was intended to teach investors a lesson about penny stock companies. The messages gained widespread attention including an article in The Wall Street Journal.

Over time Motley Fool grew into a worldwide subscription stock recommendation service. It now releases new recommendations every Thursday, and subscribers receive them through computer interfaces provided by Motley Fool. The terms of service in a Motley Fool subscription agreement (in the words of the May 3, 2022 Complaint brought by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission [“SEC”] in the Federal Court for the Southern District of New York) “expressly prohibit unauthorized access to its systems.” David Lee Stone of Nampa, Idaho (southwest of Boise), is a 36-year-old computer design and repair person with a degree in computer science. Since June 2021, he and his wife have lived periodically in Romania, a fact cited in the Complaint, suggesting, perhaps, some involvement with Romania-based computer hackers. In any event, Stone is alleged in the Complaint to have used deceptive means beginning in November 2020 to obtain pre-release access to upcoming Motley Fool stock picks. Using that information, Stone and a co-defendant made aggressive investments, typically in options, which generated more than $12 million in gains. Stone, his codefendant, and his family and friends all benefited financially from knowing in advance the Motley Fool picks.

The SEC seeks injunctions against Stone and his co-defendant, as well as disgorgement with interest and civil penalties, for violating the antifraud provisions of federal law. The Commission also seeks disgorgement with interest from the family and friends. In addition, the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York has filed criminal charges against Stone.

This case is in many ways reminiscent of the 1985 federal prosecution by the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York (who happened to be Rudolph Giuliani at the time) of R. Foster Winans. Winans was, from 1982 to 1984, the co-author of “Heard on the Street,” a column in The Wall Street Journal. Winans leaked advance word of what would be in his column to a stockbroker who then invested with the benefit of that information, sharing some of the profits with Winans. Winans argued that his actions were unethical, but not criminal. He was found guilty of insider trading and wire fraud and was sentenced to 18 months in prison. He appealed his conviction all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which upheld the lower court rulings.

Attempting to profit on market sensitive information can be both a civil and a criminal offense. The SEC Enforcement Division and the relevant U.S. Attorney are prepared to introduce a perpetrator to those consequences.

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.

THE OLD 9999 SCAM?: Plaintiff Alleges Defendant Made 5000 Illegal Phone Calls to his Number–But is it a Set Up?

So ostensiby the case of Mongeon v. KPH Healthcare, 2022 WL 1978674 Case No. 2:21-cv-00195 (D. Vt. 06/06/2022) is simply a case about the definition of “consumer” under the Vermont Consumer Protection Act (“VCPA”), 9 V.S.A. § 2453.

The plaintiff alleges his receipt of 4000 calls from the Defendant after the Defendant promised to stop calling was an act of “fraud” and “deceit” under the VCPA. But since the Plaintiff has not alleged facts establishing he is a “consumer” within the meaning of the Act the Court dismissed the case, without prejudice.

Pretty blasé.

But let’s back up. Why would Defendant–seemingly a local pharmacy–blast the Plaintiff’s number so many times?

Well the Plaintiff’s full number is not set forth in the decision–but the last four digits are “9999.”

Many years ago before I became a TCPA class action defense lawyer I–like many out there–had a very low impression of the TCPA. I remember a guy in law school who made tuition bring junk fax cases. And I had a colleague who was locked in mortal battle with some clown who was bringing a series of small claims TCPA suits in Southern California arising out of calls to a “designer phone number”: 999-999-9999.

Hmmmmm.

Much like the old case of Stoops in which the Plaintiff had over 80 cell phones–or the recent case of Barton in which the Plaintiff had a cell phone purchased specifically to set up TCPA suits–a 9999 scammer will pick up a “designer number” like 999-999-9999 and wear it is for a legitimate purpose. “I run a real estate agency, etc.” Looking deeper there is rarely any utility behind the number–although other designer numbers like (800) 444-4444 are very helpful–and the numbers are often just used to net TCPA lawsuits.

The reason it works is rather obvious.

When I walk into my local Sports Clips for my monthly trim there is no way I’m going to give them my private cell phone number. So I give them 999-999-9999. (Of course, I also give them my email of no@no.com.) It works perfectly well for check in, and I never receive any texts or calls from them reminding me to come back to style my luscious used-to-be-black locks.

Apart from folks providing the number 999-999-9999 to a business, many companies will knowingly have their agents enter the number as a default when the customer does not otherwise provide their number. This was the case in the old “small claims bandit” run of suits I mentioned earlier–apparently a local hospital group was engaging in this practice, which lead to an endless number of TCPA suits being filed against them by an enterprising Plaintiff.

Well Mongeon appears to be the same issue. Per the ruling: , Defendant’s representatives advised Plaintiff “that his phone number was attached to multiple other customers who had prescriptions at the pharmacy” because Plaintiff’s phone number, XXX-XXX-9999, is “the ‘default’ number for all new or current customers in [Defendant’s] system without a phone number.”

Pro tip: the 9999 play is arguably the oldest manufactured lawsuit trick in TCPAWorld. Don’t fall for it. Never use 999-999-9999 (or any other series of numbers) as a “default” setting for customer phone numbers. And if you do, you definitely want to suppress dialing to those numbers.

Stay safe out there TCPAWorld.

Article By Eric J. Troutman of Troutman Firm

For more communications, media, and internet news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

L.A. Jury Delivers Mother of All Verdicts – $464 Million to Two Employees!

As we have previously reported, jury verdicts in employment cases have continued to skyrocket in recent months, and there is no sign they are leveling off. Late last week, a Los Angeles Superior Court jury awarded a total of over $464 million ($440 million of which was in punitive damages) in a two-plaintiff retaliation case. This verdict is more than double any previous amount ever awarded and clearly qualifies as the largest verdict of its kind since the Fall of the Roman Empire.

The plaintiffs alleged they were retaliated against for making complaints about sexual and racial harassment in the workplace, directed at them and other coworkers, leading to their being pushed out of the company.

One plaintiff brought complaints to management about the alleged sexual harassment of two female employees and claimed he was constructively discharged after being subjected to retaliatory complaints and investigations from other supervisors. The other plaintiff made anonymous complaints to the internal ethics hotline about the racial and sexual harassment of both himself and other coworkers.

After a two-month trial, the jury awarded one plaintiff $22.4 million in compensatory damages and $400 million in punitive damages and awarded the other plaintiff $2 million in compensatory damages and $40 million in punitive damages.

This latest verdict comes on the heels of a judge reducing another huge December 2021 verdict from a Los Angeles Superior Court jury (which we wrote about here) that awarded $5.4 million in compensatory damages and $150 million in punitive damages to a fired insurance company executive who alleged discrimination and retaliation. The judge ordered a reduction in the verdict to $18.95 million in punitive damages (or, in the alternative, a new damages trial) on the grounds that the prior verdict involved an impermissible double recovery ($75 million each from two Farmers Insurance entities) and a presumably unconstitutional ratio of punitive damages to compensatory damages (a ratio exceeding 9 or 10-to-1 is presumed to be excessive and unconstitutional, and the ratio, in that case, was 28-to-1).

Only time will tell if this $464 million verdict stands. In the meantime, our advice to employers worried about these gargantuan verdicts remains the same: ARBITRATE!

Article By Anthony J Oncidi and Morgan J. Peterson of Proskauer Rose LLP

For more labor and employment news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Alcohol Suppliers Hit with ADA Website Accessibility Lawsuits

The increasing popularity of online shopping is placing e-commerce businesses—specifically those in the alcohol beverage industry—in legal crosshairs. In lockstep with a recent uptick in website accessibility cases, plaintiff firms are sending pre-suit demand letters to alcohol suppliers and, in some cases, even filing a state or federal court lawsuit. These lawsuits—which are typically filed in California or New York—involve claims that a supplier’s website is not accessible to individuals who are blind in violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and related state laws. In these cases, plaintiffs seek attorneys’ fees, damages (only under state law) and injunctive relief that would require the website to conform with the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) standards, which have been broadly adopted by courts and regulators.

To prevail on a website accessibility claim, plaintiffs must first show that a defendant is a private entity that owns, leases or operates a “place of public accommodation.” Courts, however, are split on what it means for a website to be considered a place of public accommodation under Title III of the ADA. While some jurisdictions require that there be a “physical nexus” between the website and a brick-and-mortar store, other jurisdictions have permitted these cases to go forward against a website-only company that does not own or operate any physical retail location.

In addition to establishing that the supplier’s website is a place of public accommodation, the plaintiff must satisfy certain jurisdictional requirements which will depend upon whether products can be purchased directly from the website as well as whether the supplier ships to the state in which the suit was filed. Leveraging these defenses (among others) will be critical when it comes to either convincing the plaintiff to withdraw the claim, filing a motion to dismiss or achieving an early resolution on favorable terms.

Due to the rise in these website accessibility lawsuits, we encourage industry members to take a proactive approach:

Train personnel on accessibility requirements and WCAG standards.
Test the website against WCAG standards (through independent consultants or user testing).
Retain testing documentation to demonstrate that users with disabilities can fully use the website.
Assess potential areas of non-conformance with WCAG standards.
Work with internal/external technical teams to implement accessibility features into the website.
Develop an accessibility policy that informs users about the company’s accessibility practices.
Consider including a link to the website accessibility policy on every webpage, including a reporting option that is appropriately routed to address accessibility issues.
Regularly audit the website to assess its level of accessibility (particularly after website updates).
Engage legal counsel to minimize litigation risk associated with website accessibility issues, including whether the ADA is applicable to the company’s website in light of the current state of the law.

Article By Jeremy White and Alva C. Mather of McDermott Will & Emery

For more biotech, food, and drug news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Category: Litigation

BREAKING: Supreme Court Reverses California Court of Appeal in Viking River Cruises v. Moriana

Like this: