The National Law Forum

Blue Bell Fined Record $17.25 Million in Post-Conviction Criminal Penalties for Listeria Outbreak

As previously reported on this blog, a multi-state listeriosis outbreak in 2015 linked to Blue Bell Creameries LP’s ice cream products contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes led to recalls, state regulatory enforcement actions (discussed here), civil litigation (including shareholder lawsuits), and criminal prosecution of the company and its former president. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, at least 10 people were sickened with listeriosis and hospitalized in Arizona, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas, and three people in Kansas died.

Pursuant to a plea agreement filed in federal court in Austin, Texas, in May 2020, the company pled guilty to two misdemeanor counts under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of distributing adulterated ice cream products through interstate commerce. After conviction, Blue Bell was recently sentenced to pay $17.25 million in criminal penalties ($9.35 million in criminal fines and $7.9 million in forfeiture). According to the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), this represents the largest-ever criminal penalty following a conviction in a food safety case.

Blue Bell also agreed to pay an additional $2.1 million to resolve civil False Claims Act allegations regarding ice cream products manufactured under insanitary conditions and sold to federal facilities. According to DOJ, the combined total of $19.35 million in fine, forfeiture, and civil settlement payments constitutes the second largest-ever amount paid in resolution of a food-safety matter (the largest to date is a $25 million fine paid by Chipotle Mexican Grill Inc. in connection with a three-year deferred prosecution agreement to avoid conviction through implementation of an improved food safety program). According to the U.S. Department of Justice’s (DOJ) press release announcing the Blue Bell plea agreement, since reopening its facilities in late 2015, Blue Bell has taken significant steps to enhance sanitation processes and enact a program to test products for listeria prior to shipment.

In a related federal action in the same court, Blue Bell’s former president, Paul Kruse, was charged with seven felony counts (including attempt and conspiracy to commit mail fraud, wire fraud, and attempted wire fraud) for his alleged efforts to conceal from customers what the company knew about the listeria contamination. Among other allegations, Kruse allegedly directed Blue Bell employees to remove potentially contaminated products from store freezers without notifying retailers or consumers about the real reason, directed employees to tell customers who inquired that there was an unspecified issue with a manufacturing machine instead of informing them that samples of the products had tested positive for listeria, and directed employees to conceal and destroy evidence. In July 2020, the court dismissed the felony charges for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, after Kruse successfully argued that while prosecutors had filed an information to charge him, they had failed to properly secure the required indictment or, in the alternative, a waiver of the right of indictment.

ARTICLE BY Food and Drug Law at Keller and Heckman

For more articles on food and drug law, visit the National Law Review Biotech, Food, Drug section.

When Increasing Productivity Can Backfire

Time theft, especially in an age of booming remote work, is a serious concern for employers.

Time theft’s cost on productivity motivates many companies to explore ways to reduce it. In a recent case, time theft motivated a company to implement a timekeeping system that clocked employees through their fingerprints instead of the usual badges or employee numbers. As this case illustrates, however, an attempt to increase productivity by decreasing time theft can quickly lead to bleeding resources into litigation. Further, in some circumstances, the bleeding can turn into hemorrhaging, such as when a defendant finds itself simultaneously litigating in state and federal court.

In Burlinski v. Top Golf USA, Inc., No. 19-cv-06700, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 161371 (N.D. Ill. Sep. 3, 2020), the defendant faced a class action lawsuit by former employees over alleged timekeeping practices. It allegedly required its employees to record their time by scanning their fingerprints. The defendant’s purpose for using fingerprints in lieu of timecards or unique employee numbers was to prevent time theft by precluding employees from recording time for anyone but themselves.

The plaintiffs were employed in Illinois, which implicated state privacy laws. Illinois is one of a few states with laws regulating the collection of fingerprints and other biometric data. A company may be liable under the Illinois Biometric Privacy Act (“BIPA”) if it does not: (1) maintain a public retention and destruction schedule before collecting biometric data; or (2) acquire written consent prior to collecting biometric data or disclosing such data to third parties.

Procedural trouble began when the defendant removed the suit. While the district court was evaluating the defendant’s motion to dismiss and the plaintiffs’ motion to remand, the Seventh Circuit issued an opinion that changed everything. In Bryant v. Compass Grp. USA, Inc., 958 F.3d 617, 624-26 (7th Cir. 2020), the Seventh Circuit ruled on whether district courts had Article III jurisdiction over BIPA claims. The court found there was jurisdiction over claims alleging that a company failed to obtain written consent prior to collecting biometric data. The court, however, found there was no jurisdiction over claims alleging a failure to maintain a public retention and destruction schedule prior to collecting biometric data. In other words, federal courts have jurisdiction over some BIPA claims, but not others. Burlinski contained both types of claims.

Bryant had an immediate effect in Burlinski. The court remanded one claim to state court and kept the remaining claims. The court then rejected the defendant’s arguments to dismiss the removed claims, and the defendant found itself simultaneously litigating in state and federal courts.

To sum it up, Burlinski serves as a reminder for companies to vigorously ensure their own compliance with any applicable privacy statutes. With many services now turning remote, time theft will likely become only a larger problem. Before implementing a new timekeeping system, however, companies should recall the tale of Burlinski and its double litigation.

ARTICLE BY Aaron C. Garavaglia of Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP

For more articles on employment, visit the National Law Review Labor & Employment section.

The Wild (Kanye) West of Trade Secret Theft

Musical artist and fashion icon Kanye West is being sued by a video and ecommerce company called MyChannel Inc. (MYC) that claims he breached their mutual nondisclosure agreement and took “their proprietary and confidential technology and information to fuel the e-commerce engine” of his Yeezy brand. MYC filed its lawsuit in the US District Court for the Central District of California. The minority-owned business alleges that West made “lavish promises to MYC of millions of dollars in economic reward,” as well as the formation of a lucrative partnership providing millions more[.]” In return, MYC asserted that it agreed to provide Kanye West—and did in fact provide Kanye West—with “tens of thousands of hours of investment in Yeezy in reliance on those promises and the MYC-Kanye partnership.”

At the heart of MYC’s complaint is its allegation that it developed a unique video platform—including a unique, proprietary “shopability” function that was protected by a nondisclosure agreement—to grow the ecommerce operation of West’s Yeezy brand. According to MYC, West brazenly rebranded MYC as his own company, referring to it as “YZY Tech” to partners like Adidas. MYC claims that West and his Yeezy brand then breached their obligations to compensate MYC for its work, yet they nevertheless continued to use MYC’s ecommerce platform, including MYC’s shopability function. In fact, MYC alleges that West’s “closest confidents [sic] and business advisors reached out to MYC’s founders” noting similarities between their work and the platform West continued to use, reasonably believing that MYC was responsible for the content.

The veracity of MYC’s claims will be tested in court as it litigates its claims against Kanye West. In the meantime, this case demonstrates that theft of intellectual property does not always occur in the shadows with, for instance, employees clandestinely misappropriating trade secrets. Rather, misappropriation of intellectual property can sometimes occur in plain sight when business deals and/or partnerships deteriorate. It is important, then, to clearly delineate rights to intellectual property and carefully craft nondisclosure agreements that protect assets exchanged with prospective partners.

ARTICLE BY Michael A. Foley of Jones Walker LLP

For more articles on trade secrets, visit the National Law Review Intellectual Property section.

Irish Data Case Against Facebook Could Complicate All Data Transfers to the US

Will the EU finally deny the right to transfer any personal data from its shores to the United States? Its privacy decisions have been inching closer to this determination for years, and an Irish case against Facebook may tip the balance.

For fifteen years, personal data being sent from the European Union (“EU”) to the United States were accepted under “Safe Harbor” principles. The Safe Harbor emerged in part to the EU’s 1995 Data Protection Directive being implemented and concerns that with the emergence of the internet, that the United States could not guarantee a sufficient level of protection for European citizens’ personal data.

In 2013, however, the Safe Harbor was challenged, due to Edward Snowden’s intelligence leak which indicated a significant American government surveillance program. The challenge to the Safe Harbor was rooted in the belief that the information of EU citizens stored in the US would be at risk of government surveillance. An Austrian citizen, Maximilian Schrems (“Schrems”), filed a complaint against Facebook with the Irish Data Protection Commission (“DPC”). The DPC declined to investigate the complaint, because the data transfer at issue was in adherence with the Safe Harbor.

Schrems proceeded to challenge the Irish DPC’s refusal to investigate the complaint in court. The Irish High Court referred this challenge to the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”). Facebook, like many companies, relied on the Safe Harbor to process and transfer EU personal data. In October 2015, the CJEU declared the Safe Harbor invalid. In response, the United States and EU replaced the Safe Harbor with the U.S.-EU Privacy Shield, in order to allow companies to continue to transfer EU citizen’s personal data to the United States while still complying with the requirements outlined by the CJEU in the Schrems decision.

Recently, the CJEU invalidated the Privacy Shield mechanism for transferring data between the EU and United States. The basis for the decision was once again governmental access to personal data. The recent decision (“Schrems II”) preserved an alternate legal mechanism for companies, Standard Contractual Clauses (“SCC”), when the data exporter puts in place appropriate safeguards to ensure a high level of protection for data subjects. Some local European data authority decisions and recent actions by the DPC against Facebook created concern around the use of SCCs as well.

In the DPC’s annual report last year, it disclosed that it had launched 8 investigations involving Facebook for GDPR violations. A September 9, 2020 article in the Wall Street Journal reported that the DPC had issued Facebook a preliminary order to suspend transfers of EU personal data to the United States.

A spokesman for the Commission declined to comment on the report. Ireland’s data regulator has sent Facebook a preliminary order to stop transferring user data from the EU to the U.S. Though the DPC did not provide comment, Facebook stated that the DPC had “commenced an inquiry into Facebook controlled EU-US data transfers, and has suggested that SCCs cannot in practice be used for EU-US data transfers.” Facebook is also seeking judicial review of the Irish Data Protection Commission’s preliminary decision because the SCC is a widely accepted tool for transferring EU data to the United States, sans Safe Harbor or Privacy Shield. This legal challenge will be significant to monitor as it has the potential to implicate every transfer of EU personal data to the United States going forward.

ARTICLE BY Dominic Dhil Panakal of Womble Bond Dickinson

For more articles on data, visit the National Law Review Communications, Media & Internet section.

App Developer Chronicles His Saga With Apple’s ‘Anti-Competitive’ App Store

In January 2018 Apple investors complained publicly about the lack of parental controls on their popular devices. At one point even CEO Tim Cook expressed concern about the addictive nature of social media. Vancouver-based app entrepreneur Justin Payeur saw this as validation for the Boomerang Parental Control app he was developing.

What is really needed, apparently, is an app to move apps through the Apple Store app approval process. Reasons for rejecting and requiring changes to the app were numerous, varied, changing, and frustrating. The whole ordeal can drag out for years. That was Payeur’s experience as he chronicled it in an open letter on the Boomerang blog, complete with the text of email exchanges with the Apple app review team and emails to Tim Cook. The most consistent bone Apple picked with the app was that private consumer data could be shared or compromised. Developers aren’t so sure about that. Apple also didn’t like an app that controlled or shut off Apple’s own apps, like Safari, based on parents’ settings.

In June 2018 Payeur was first told that the app didn’t comply with one or more of the App Review Guidelines. He was informed that more time was needed for review and that the use of Mobile Device Management (MDM) was no longer allowed. After some fixes, he was told via message that the app still installed MDM profiles for unapproved purposes. “Specifically, your app blocks or restricts access to third-party apps using MDM,” Apple said. Payeur appealed and was again rejected because, he was told, installing MDM profiles for parental controls was not appropriate for the App Store: “Apps may only use public APIs and must run on the currently shipping OS.”

Payeur continued to log his ping-pong journey with Apple that continued through 2019. During that time Apple requested more information and more time to review. Apple offered vague new reasons for rejecting versions of the app, e.g. “false information and features.” and also cited improper mention of Android because that violates Apple’s metadata guidelines.

‘The timing was suspect’

“We did not use any private APIs or any framework in unintended uses,” Payeur wrote in his January 2020 open letter. “So our internal conclusion … was simple: Apple wanted us out of the App Store …” He said the timing was suspect; Apple was about to launch iOS 12 with screen time controls.

Abandoning development of the app for child devices, Boomerang focused on the parent mode because many of its customers were parents with iPhones and kids with Androids, or the other way around. Revenues for the app tanked and users didn’t like it.

Then the press lit a fire.

In December 2018 it was a TechCrunch piece about the challenges facing third-party developers of iOS parental control apps. In April 2019 the New York Times wrote about Apple’s anti-competitive approach to these apps, to which Apple responded that several of the rejected apps posed privacy risks. Payeur found other developers experienced the same treatment from Apple.

One of those developers was OurPact, a competitor to Boomerang in the parental control app arena. In an article published on Medium.com in May 2019, OurPact also detailed its interactions with Apple, which were very similar to what Boomerang experienced. OurPact also was met with Apple’s alleged privacy concerns. OurPact was unconvinced. According to the developer, Apple stated that “its own MDM technology, used by millions, poses risks to user privacy and can be abused by hackers. This stands in contradiction to the fact that MDM technology was initially developed by Apple to ensure security of private data on remotely managed devices.”

“Apple alone issues certificates to third parties to communicate with their MDM servers, and Apple themselves are responsible for sending all MDM commands to user devices.” OurPact went on to say, “OurPact does not have access to any of this private information via MDM. It is impossible for us, hackers, or anybody else to obtain it. Apple is the only one who has access to and uses this data.”

In June 2019 Boomerang was invited to re-submit its parental control app and was told there was a new Mobile Device Management Capability form to complete. The updated app was approved with MDM, but before it was released Apple again said the app violated the rules. This time it was because the app contained Google Analytics, which could grab sensitive data, Apple maintained.

“This was false,” Payeur said. He fixed the app, pushed the update, then was told the app was in violation for using Google Firebase, which Apple again said risked disclosure of sensitive information. After more back and forth and more waiting, his appeal was rejected. When he removed any analytics, Boomerang Parental Control was approved in October 2019.

Are you sensing a pattern?

However, Apple changed its policies yet again, saying the app was not permitted to block Safari and the App Store itself. Apple was requiring “supervised mode” used by governments and large organizations, but the app timed out these applications based on parental controls, or when parents wanted the only browser on their kids’ phones to be the SPIN Safe Brower. The Boomerang app no longer has these features.

Today, Payeur says that parents are not aware that iOS includes screen time features because it’s buried in the device settings. Parents still have a mix of devices in their families, of course.

“Apple has shown that they will change their minds if there is negative press about them. These are some of the reasons why we continue to recommend Android devices for your kids first smartphone (and you can still control them from your iPhone!). … Any way you slice it, Apple continues to be anti-competitive,” Payeur wrote.

You might think it would be unwise for the owner of a small business to come out so vehemently against such a dominant player. So many developers count on their Apple relationship and the broad distribution it offers through its monopoly on apps on Apple devices to generate revenue. When it comes to Payeur, he told the MoginRubin Blog that he figures he has little to lose since he has turned his attention to Android and only updates his existing Apple apps.

“They neutered our app through all their guideline changes,” he said. “And people (parents) are unhappy that they can’t access on their iPhones the same or similar features that we offer on Android.”

“There are a lot of app developers and they are not multi-million businesses,” Payeur told us. “We provide these apps to do good. That was the biggest frustration. Apple labeled us as bad players with their user privacy angle. That rubbed me the wrong way. At no point did we create our service to [mine and sell user data]. We used Apple’s own technology, not ours, that’s used across the world. We got creative to create parental controls. They weren’t being up front.”

‘One of the most beloved companies in the world.’

The people at OurPact also addressed the David and Goliath nature of the playing field. They said they respect Apple as “one of the most beloved companies in the world,” but they “made a mistake” and “sometimes truth has to be spoken to power,” OurPact wrote. “Given that there are no privacy issues with properly vetted MDM apps like OurPact being on the App Store, we humbly request that we are reinstated and allowed to continue providing our million users with the service they love and depend on. If Apple truly believes that parents should have tools to manage their children’s device usage, and are committed to providing a competitive, innovative app ecosystem, then they will also provide open APIs for developers to utilize.”

Boomerang and OurPact are part of a group of developers who are calling for a Screen Time API, a cross-platform API that would allow developers to provide apps that monitor and control time spent on devices. “It aims to provide a generic API that can be used for a wide range of use cases, from personal health to remote parental controls to social media monitoring. It also aims to do this in a way that is respectful of the device owners privacy, by not providing more information than is necessary and using the platforms permissions system to access data.” The document they published shows how the API would look for iOS, MacOS and tvOS.

Global concerns.

Apple’s management of its store hasn’t just raised concerns in the U.S.

The European Commission recently began investigating whether Apple is fairly applying its rules. The investigations follow separate complaints by Spotify and by an e-book/audiobook distributor on the impact of the App Store rules on competition in music streaming and e-books/audiobooks. Margrethe Vestager, the EC’s competition policy chief, said, “Apple sets the rules for the distribution of apps to users of iPhones and iPads. It appears that Apple obtained a ‘gatekeeper’ role when it comes to the distribution of apps and content to users of Apple’s popular devices. We need to ensure that Apple’s rules do not distort competition in markets where Apple is competing with other app developers ….”

Even in Russia, not exactly a bastion for ethical behavior, Apple’s conduct came to the attention of the country’s Federal Antimonopoly Service when Russian antivirus software developer Kaspersky complained in March 2019. According to CNET and ZDNet, the Russian regulator last month found Apple abuses its power over iOS apps because iPhone and iPad owners must install them from Apple’s App Story. “Kaspersky alleged that it was forced to remove features like app control and Safari browser blocking from its Safe Kids iOS app to reduce its ability to compete with Apple’s own usage-monitoring Screen Time feature,” CNET reported. The irony of a Russian agency charging anyone with abusing power shouldn’t be lost on anyone.

Back in the USA, The Washington Post published an article last year titled, “How Apple uses its App Store to copy the best ideas.” In it, the paper wrote, “Developers have come to accept that, without warning, Apple can make their work obsolete by announcing a new app or feature that uses or incorporates their ideas. Some apps have simply buckled under the pressure, in some cases shutting down.”

Asked about this article, Payeur told us in an email, “The tough part is that apps are making money. Apple copies them and offers the same or similar functionality for free, built into their platform. It’s tough to compete with ‘good enough.’”

It’s especially tough when you’re developing apps on your own dime and can’t predict the changing rules of the game.

Edited by Tom Hagy for MoginRubin LLP.

ARTICLE BY Jennifer M. Oliver of MoginRubin

For more articles on Apple, visit the National Law Review Communications, Media & Internet section.

Leave for Oregon’s Volunteer Emergency Responders During Unprecedented Wildfires

On September 9, 2020, Oregon Governor Kate Brown issued Executive Order No. 20-41 invoking the Emergency Conflagration Act Statewide in light of extreme fire danger. Governor Brown’s invocation of the Emergency Conflagration Act remains in effect until at least November 1, 2020, as wildfires continue to rage. More than 1 million acres of land have burned across Oregon since September 7, 2020. To put things in perspective the area burned is nearly five times the size of New York City. According to Governor Brown, Oregon is facing an unprecedented level of uncontained fire. To put the flames out, Oregon will need all the help that it can get from its courageous firefighters and first responders.

Employers may want to be aware of their ability under Oregon law to grant unpaid leave requests for volunteer firefighters and other first responders who need to perform services to battle the wildfires and perform search and rescue efforts.

Pursuant to ORS 476.574, Oregon private and public employers may provide unpaid leave to employees who are volunteer firefighters, members of rural fire protection districts, or firefighters employed by a city or private firefighting service to perform service in accordance with Oregon’s Emergency Conflagration Act. Pursuant to ORS 404.250, Oregon private and public employers may also “[u]pon request of an employee who is a search and rescue volunteer accepted to participate in search and rescue activities by the sheriff … grant a leave of absence to the employee.”

If an employer provides unpaid leave to an employee who is a volunteer firefighter or search and rescue volunteer, the leave must extend “until release from such service permits the employee to resume the duties of employment.” Once granted leave, the employee has a right to reinstatement to his or her previous position or an equivalent position without loss of seniority, accrued leave, or other benefits. Employers may require employees taking leave for purposes under the act to use all of their available accrued vacation or other paid time off before extending unpaid leave.

Employers that permit employees to take unpaid leave for emergency response activities must follow the prescriptions of ORS 476.574 and ORS 404.250, as a failure to do so may be considered an unlawful employment practice under Oregon law. An aggrieved employee who claims an unlawful employment practice may file a complaint with the commissioner of the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries or may bring a civil action in circuit court. Aggrieved employees may be entitled to recover compensatory damages, back pay, costs, and attorney’s fees. Aggrieved employees may also be entitled to equitable relief, such as a reinstatement of employment.

In sum, employers of these covered individuals may want to be aware that Oregon law permits optional leave during this critical time. Employers that decide to provide leave may want to consider carefully their statutory obligations in order to avoid a violation resulting in an unlawful employment practice during the protected leave.

ARTICLE BY Paul E. Cirner at Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.

For more on emergency unpaid leave, see the National Law Review Labor & Employment law section.

Eight Nebraska Football Players Commence Litigation Against the Big Ten Seeking Reinstatement of Their Season and Monetary Damage

On August 27, 2020, eight Nebraska football players commenced litigation against the Big Ten Conference in the District Court of Lancaster County, Nebraska. The lawsuit asserts that the Big Ten Conference’s cancellation or possible delay of the 2020 college football season was “arbitrary and capricious.” In support of the same, the student-athletes point to the SEC’s, Big 12’s and ACC’s decisions to move forward with their college football seasons.

The lawsuit alleges the contractual procedures required to cancel or delay the season were not followed. Moreover, the lawsuit asserts that although, the players are not parties to that contract, they enjoy certain rights as third-party beneficiaries and therefore have standing to assert those claims. Legally, the players’ assertion that they somehow enjoy third-party status is in my opinion extremely weak. Under Nebraska law, in order for the players to enjoy third-party beneficiary statute, “it must appear by express stipulation or by reasonable intendment that the rights and interests of such unnamed parties were contemplated and provision was made for them.” Properties Inv. Group v. Applied Communications, 242 Neb. 464, 470 (1993). In other words, the Court is likely to look to the express language of the contract or governing documents between the member institutions to determine whether or not it expressly or reasonably confers the rights to student-athletes to sue for violating the same. I expect that the express language of the contract between the 14 schools in the Big Ten does not give rights to their student-athletes to sue.

The lawsuit also alleges that because these players were permitted under Nebraska state law to sell their name and likeness the Big Ten’s decision to cancel or delay the season will result in damages. The players’ lawsuit alleges that the Big Ten tortuously interfered with their business expectancies. Factually, those claims are problematic because a review of the rooster, reveals that most of the plaintiffs are redshirt freshman with little to no playing experience. Moreover, based upon both the short and long term uncertainty concerning COVID-19, it will be extremely difficult, perhaps impossible for the players to prove that the Big Ten’s decision was “arbitrary and capricious.” Douglas Cnty v. Archie, 295 Neb. 674, 688 (2017). Nebraska law holds that an “action is ‘arbitrary and capricious’ if it is taken in disregard of the facts and circumstances of the case, without some basic which would lead a reasonable and honest person to the same conclusion.” In my opinion, based upon the medical and scientific data and the member institutions concerns for the health and well-being of their students, it will be next to impossible for the plaintiffs to meet that extremely high burden. Even if it turns out that the Big Ten made the wrong decision will not be dispositive to this issue.

The players’ lawsuit is also legally flawed because Nebraska law holds that damages cannot be speculative or conjectural. Pribiil v. Koinzan, 266, Neb. 222, 227-228 (2003). Although, the players assert that if they were given the opportunity to play, it would have resulted in them being able to sell their name and likeness, I suspect none of these players had contracts, endorsements or agreements when the Big Ten decided to cancelled or delay its college football season. If so, I believe the players’ damages would be speculative or conjectural and not subject to recovery. Because this is a legal issue, not a factual question, I suspect, the claim is likely to be dismissed at some point in the litigation.

I expect the Big Ten to file a pre-answer motion seeking the dismissal of the entire. I expect the Big Ten to assert that the players do not enjoy third-party beneficiary status, the decision was not arbitrary and capricious and that the alleged damages as asserted in the case are speculative and conjectural. While the Court in deciding a pre-answer motion to dismiss is required to assume all of the facts contained in the lawsuit are truthful and accurate, I suspect that most, if not all of the claims asserted in this lawsuit will be dismissed. Even if the damages issue were to survive a pre-answer motion to dismiss, I suspect after the completion of discovery the remainder of the case would be dismissed by way of summary judgment motion.

ARTICLE BY Scott I. Unger of Stark & Stark

For more articles on sports, visit the National Law Review Entertainment, Art & Sports section.

Tracey Goldvarg joins the National Law Review as Business Development Director

CHICAGO (PRWEB) SEPTEMBER 15, 2020

The National Law Review (NLR), one of the highest volume business law news services in the United States, announced that Tracey Goldvarg joined the company as Business Development Director. Goldvarg brings extensive legal business development and B to B publishing experience from her previous leadership roles at American Lawyer Media (ALM), Today’s General Counsel, and Inside Counsel. Goldvarg’s wealth of knowledge and legal industry know-how will enhance the National Law Review’s initiatives involving various advertising, promotional and other new product offerings.

The National Law Review is a leading source of information for companies and individuals looking for guidance on compliance and regulatory matters. The NLR’s COVID-19 pandemic coverage garnered over 4.3 million readers in both March and April of this year, and the NLR’s pandemic coverage continues following Congressional and Executive directives and local Coronavirus mandates.

Goldvarg joins the National Law Review at an exciting time, when the company is poised for exponential growth as traffic levels to the National Law Review have tripled in the last year.

Jennifer Schaller, Managing Director of the National Law Review:

“We are excited to welcome Tracey to our team. Her depth of experience in the publishing and in the legal and financial services fields is invaluable as we continue to grow and develop new markets, expand coverage in new areas and amplify our product offerings to our clients and in new verticals. Tracey’s upbeat attitude and exceptional commitment to client service is just what we need to keep our momentum going.”

Goldvarg:

“I am thrilled to be joining such a dynamic and nimble organization at such a pivotal time in its growth. I look forward to continuing our on-going collaboration and welcome the opportunity to join a women-owned organization, that values the insights and talents of its team-members and has such high standards of customer service to its clients. Their client retention numbers are unparalleled.”

The NLR is a certified women-owned business enterprise that reports breaking legal news on emerging and on-going business issues ranging from business immigration to the regulatory and operational challenges of the Coronavirus pandemic.

The National Law Review’s U.S based editorial team publishes around the clock and optimizes legal thought leadership for search engine visibility, and for distribution via news syndication partners. The NLR also promotes our published content through their extensive social media network, and to their over 135,000 daily newsletter subscribers.

About the National Law Review: The National Law Review is a daily legal news website with a mission to provide objective, reliable and practical litigation, legislative and administrative legal news and analysis through partnership with law firms, other legal and business organizations and our own staff journalists. The NLR’s online platform was developed by corporate attorneys and is the online descendant of a legal publication tracing its roots back to 1888. With the talents of our own writers and contributing authors, the National Law Review has grown into one of the highest volume business law publications in the U.S., with an average of 2 million visitors each month. Visit us at www.NatLawReview.com.

Contact:

JENNIFER BUECHELE SCHALLER
E. EILENE SPEAR

National Law Review / National Law Forum
info@natlawreview.com

708-357-3317

Twitter

Facebook

Uncle Sam Wants to Protect Blockchain Technology

On August 27, 2020, the head of the U.S. Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division (“DOJ”), Makan Delrahim, spoke at the Thirteenth Annual Conference on Innovation Economics and emphasized that one of the DOJ’s top priorities is to protect innovation and ensure that antitrust laws do not act as an impediment to the burgeoning cryptocurrency market. COVID-19 has illuminated the importance of innovative solutions, as businesses develop new ways to operate during the pandemic. In particular, Delrahim highlighted blockchain as an innovative technology that the DOJ seeks to protect because of its potential to topple existing monopoly structures.

Blockchain technology is essentially a shared ledger of information and transactions that is distributed across a number of computers on the network, the ledger updates with every transaction on each computer and is viewable by anyone with access to that particular blockchain at any time. In traditional networking solutions, the company that owns or controls the network infrastructure (the intermediary) may be able to raise the cost of doing business on the network as it becomes larger. In contrast, blockchain technology can operate a network without a centralized intermediary, resulting in potentially lower networking costs and limiting the concentration of market power.

Although blockchain technology offers tremendous value, Delrahim also underscored the potential for abuse. He noted that those with current market power could use blockchain technology in an anti-competitive manner. This is particularly a concern with closed or permissioned blockchain networks where only insiders are allowed to operate a computer on the network. For example, seafood harvesters could collusively condition access to a permissioned blockchain, which tracks useful supply chain data, on agreeing to certain prices or output. Such collusive activity would cause tremendous harm to competition and consumers.

In an effort to combat such potentially anticompetitive activities, Delrahim noted that the DOJ is taking proactive measures to understand how emerging technologies work and how they can affect competition. The Antitrust Division has implemented a new initiative to train its attorneys and economists in innovative technologies such as blockchain technology, machine learning, and artificial intelligence, to prepare itself for monopolists who may take advantage of these new technologies.

Delrahim’s speech is an acknowledgement that the DOJ looks favorably on innovative technologies, in particular blockchain solutions. The DOJ wants to protect and promote the growth of these technologies by combating anticompetitive behavior. Delrahim’s speech is also an important signal that the DOJ is focused on potentially anti-competitive applications of blockchain technology. Any group of firms that are considering working together in developing a blockchain technology solution in their industry should take appropriate precautions to make sure their activities do not constitute a violation of U.S. anti-trust laws.

ARTICLE BY Melissa Ho, Richard B. Levin and

G. Phillip Kim of Polsinelli PC

For more articles on Cryptocurrency, visit the National Law Review Communications, Media & Internet section.

5 Ways to Successfully Manage Remote Staff

Managing your law firm staff in the office or remotely can and should look remarkably similar; however, there are unique challenges to working virtual. Understanding this and adjusting your management approach will be the difference between a productive, seamless transition, and one that potentially costs your business. We’ve rounded up 5 ways you can navigate successfully managing remote staff during a pandemic.

Ensure a proper workspace setup

You want your employees to have a comfortable setup that allows them to be productive in the office and working from home should be no different. While some of the usual office luxuries may not be possible (e.g. two computer monitors), ask your staff about what they need at home to create a similar environment. Do they have a desk and proper chair to work from? What type of lighting is available? If they’re relying on their personal computer, is it functional for work purposes? What about a printer? Is there access to high-speed internet? Some employees may not feel comfortable asking for at-home office supplies, and these are just a few of the questions that need to be addressed to allow your employees to work happily and efficiently.

Minimize loneliness and isolation

One of the downsides to working remotely is a sense of isolation, which can lead to anxiety and depression. Consider that employees may live alone, further exacerbating the possibility of loneliness. Identify ways for your team to interact throughout the day, ideally via video and phone versus email or text messaging. Don’t make conversations all about business; make time for small talk. Maintain office structure with designated times for breaks and lunch and consider holding virtual lunches together. Encourage employees to go for brief walks throughout the day to stay energized. Host team building activities such as workouts in the evening or happy hours via Zoom or similar platforms.

Overcome communication challenges

When working virtually, you automatically lose the opportunity to quickly pop into someone’s office and bounce an idea off them, but communication challenges go beyond that. Despite everyone’s best efforts, there will likely be more emails and texts, which, if not carefully crafted, can result in an unintended tone. Combat this by picking up the phone or getting on FaceTime, Skype or another video-oriented platform. It may take more effort and organization but will avoid employees questioning what you meant and an endless back and forth over email. Schedule time to brainstorm and strategize versus just talking about to-dos. While not as natural as having a quick chat in the office, it ensures continued creativity and interaction.

Don’t forget about encouragement and celebrations

It’s important that your staff stays motivated and focused on personal growth. In addition to team meetings, carve out time for one-on-one conversations, too. This will allow you to address any questions or concerns employees have that they aren’t comfortable bringing up in a group setting. It’s also an opportunity to discuss their goals and how those can be achieved. Don’t let evaluations go by the wayside simply because you’re not meeting in person.

Promote camaraderie by acknowledging milestones as you would in the office – five-year anniversary with the firm, birthdays, etc. This maintains positive employee morale and helps to minimize the isolation factor addressed earlier.

Establish a culture of ownership and accountability

Your team’s organization and productivity is only as good as yours. Implement systems to keep staff accountable. For example, schedule regular check-ins at the same time each day/week and use project management software such as Asana to keep everyone on top of projects and tasks. If you need to cancel a team call, reschedule immediately rather than telling employees you’ll get back to them. This allows them to plan their day and prevents wondering when they’ll be able to talk to you about a particular client or issue. Your team will take clues from you on how to best navigate working remotely so be an example they should emulate.

Remember that not every employee is suited to work from home, and you need to do what you can as a manager to set them up for success. This will benefit everyone in the long run.

ARTICLE BY Berbay Marketing and Public Relations Firm Blog

For more articles on the legal industry visit the National Law Review Law Office Management section.

The National Law Forum

Blue Bell Fined Record $17.25 Million in Post-Conviction Criminal Penalties for Listeria Outbreak

Like this:

When Increasing Productivity Can Backfire

Like this:

The Wild (Kanye) West of Trade Secret Theft

Like this:

Irish Data Case Against Facebook Could Complicate All Data Transfers to the US

Like this: