Tag: supreme court

Are they Worth Price of Paper They're Printed On? – Ubersization of Arbitration Clauses

Arbitration has long been treated as an inferior method of resolving disputes, despite pronouncements to the contrary from the U.S. Supreme Court. However, arbitration does serve a purpose. The process is less formalized, so it moves much faster than the court system. That means less disruption to business. It’s also less expensive than bringing a civil action, making it easier for individuals to assert their rights or air their grievances. For these reasons and more, many businesses have incorporated arbitration provisions into their contracts and handbooks. The Federal Arbitration Act was enacted in 1925, yet these types of contractual agreements to arbitrate still get shot down in certain courts and by certain administrative authorities.more

Drivers v. Uber – The Arbitration Dispute

In Uber’s California litigation, Judge Chen has examined various aspects of the arbitration provisions contained in the various versions of Uber’s agreements with its drivers.  The 2013 Agreement and the 2014 Agreement shared several key features:

(1) all disputes not exempted from the scope of arbitration were subject to resolution by final and binding arbitration;

(2) arbitration could proceed only on an individual basis, not by class;

(3) the delegation clause in the provision stated that “disputes arising out of or relating to the interpretation or application of this Arbitration Provision, including the enforceability, revocability or validity of the Arbitration Provision or any portion of the Arbitration Provision” shall be decided by the arbitrator; and,

(4) an opt-out clause allowed drivers to avoid the arbitration clause.

In separate litigation, the Court had Uber revise the opt-out provision to make it more conspicuous and less onerous on the drivers.  Because the 2013 Agreement contained the original opt-out provision, it did not stand a chance of being found enforceable.  In later 2014 and 2015 Agreements,  Uber included the provision in boldface and ALL CAPS with text larger than the provisions around it.  Language also was added to explain the significance of arbitration and the right to opt-out.  Additionally, to exercise that right now, a driver need only send an email to Uber stating his/her name and the desire to opt-out (although he/she could send a letter by regular mail, overnight delivery, or hand-delivery, too).  As a result, when the Court certified a class on September 1, 2015, those drivers who failed to opt-out of the provision were excluded from the class.  However, in December, the Court found the arbitration agreements were unenforceable on California public policy grounds, irrespective of the opt-out provision, thus dramatically increasing the size of the class.

Meanwhile, delegation clauses, like the one set forth under (3) above, seem to cause consternation in courts across the nation.  Even the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that courts are the typical adjudicators of whether the parties have agreed to arbitrate in the first instance.  Because a delegation clause puts this determination in the hands of the arbitrator instead, it must be clear and unmistakable.  In Uber’s case, the clause was clear, but it was made ambiguous because it conflicted with other clauses contained in the Agreements.  For instance, a separate clause in Uber’s 2013 and 2014 driver agreements stated that the state and federal courts in San Francisco had exclusive jurisdiction over any disputes, actions, or claims arising out of the Agreement.  While Uber argued that the forum selection clause reserving jurisdiction in San Francisco courts was for any disputes found not subject to arbitration, Judge Chen did not buy into that argument.  He felt the clauses conflicted, and since the courts would have to apply rules of construction to resolve the ambiguity created by the competing clauses, that meant that the delegation clause was not clear and unmistakable, and therefore, was unenforceable.

The arbitration provision in Uber’s 2013 and 2014 Agreements also addressed responsibility for payment of the arbitrator’s fees.  It provided that if applicable law did not require Uber to pay for all of the costs and fees of arbitration, then the costs would be apportioned between the parties as required by law.  Judge Chen found that because the delegation clause would force drivers to pay exorbitant fees just to arbitrate whether or not their substantive disputes even belonged before the arbitrator in the first place, when drivers would not have to pay a court to make that determination, such a clause deprived drivers of any forum for their claims.

The arbitration provision contained three additional unfavorable terms which Judge Chen found were not sufficiently highlighted for the drivers’ attention.  For one, the confidentiality clause precluded the parties from disclosing the existence, contents, or results of any arbitration.  For another, the intellectual property carve-out clause excluded intellectual property disputes from arbitration – something the Court found favored Uber.  Finally, the unilateral modification clause permitted Uber to unilaterally modify the terms of the agreement without notice to the drivers.  As a result of all of the foregoing issues, the Court found the agreements to arbitrate were unconscionable.  Thus, Judge Chen refused to enforce them.

Can an enforceable arbitration agreement even be written? 

Arbitration agreements are evaluated on a case-by-case basis.  While many are still disfavored, as I mentioned earlier, they are more likely to be upheld if they are not unconscionable.  The procedural component of the unconscionability analysis usually deals with the formation of the agreement itself.  This includes the characteristics of the parties (e.g., age, literacy, sophistication), the manner and circumstances under which the contract was executed, and whether terms of the agreement are hidden or complex, among other things.  The substantive component looks at the unfairness of the agreement.  Judge Chen, acknowledging that the issue wasn’t fully settled, nevertheless evaluated the arbitration provision through the lens of an employer/employee relationship.  Let me provide some tips that make arbitration agreements more likely to be upheld by courts in the employment context.

  • Keep your agreement to arbitrate in a separate document requiring a separate acknowledgement.

  • While the agreement may cover all workplace disputes between the parties, do not preclude employees from filing charges with state or federal administrative agencies, like the EEOC.

  • If you reserve the right to modify or discontinue the arbitration clause, include a requirement that notice will be given to employees and that the modification or rescission will be applied prospectively.

  • Since cost is a big issue for courts reviewing these agreements, make sure the employee will only be required to pay what the arbitrator finds is reasonable should the employee lose, or make sure the costs to pursue arbitration are not more costly than those to bring a lawsuit.

  • The remedies available in arbitration should be similar to those available in court.

  • Avoid delegation clauses.

As always, there is no substitute for consulting with an attorney when attempting to draft one of these agreements.

ARTICLE BY Vanessa L. Goddard of Steptoe & Johnson PLLC
© Steptoe & Johnson PLLC. All Rights Reserved.

Are they Worth Price of Paper They’re Printed On? – Ubersization of Arbitration Clauses

Arbitration has long been treated as an inferior method of resolving disputes, despite pronouncements to the contrary from the U.S. Supreme Court. However, arbitration does serve a purpose. The process is less formalized, so it moves much faster than the court system. That means less disruption to business. It’s also less expensive than bringing a civil action, making it easier for individuals to assert their rights or air their grievances. For these reasons and more, many businesses have incorporated arbitration provisions into their contracts and handbooks. The Federal Arbitration Act was enacted in 1925, yet these types of contractual agreements to arbitrate still get shot down in certain courts and by certain administrative authorities.more

Drivers v. Uber – The Arbitration Dispute

In Uber’s California litigation, Judge Chen has examined various aspects of the arbitration provisions contained in the various versions of Uber’s agreements with its drivers.  The 2013 Agreement and the 2014 Agreement shared several key features:

(1) all disputes not exempted from the scope of arbitration were subject to resolution by final and binding arbitration;

(2) arbitration could proceed only on an individual basis, not by class;

(3) the delegation clause in the provision stated that “disputes arising out of or relating to the interpretation or application of this Arbitration Provision, including the enforceability, revocability or validity of the Arbitration Provision or any portion of the Arbitration Provision” shall be decided by the arbitrator; and,

(4) an opt-out clause allowed drivers to avoid the arbitration clause.

In separate litigation, the Court had Uber revise the opt-out provision to make it more conspicuous and less onerous on the drivers.  Because the 2013 Agreement contained the original opt-out provision, it did not stand a chance of being found enforceable.  In later 2014 and 2015 Agreements,  Uber included the provision in boldface and ALL CAPS with text larger than the provisions around it.  Language also was added to explain the significance of arbitration and the right to opt-out.  Additionally, to exercise that right now, a driver need only send an email to Uber stating his/her name and the desire to opt-out (although he/she could send a letter by regular mail, overnight delivery, or hand-delivery, too).  As a result, when the Court certified a class on September 1, 2015, those drivers who failed to opt-out of the provision were excluded from the class.  However, in December, the Court found the arbitration agreements were unenforceable on California public policy grounds, irrespective of the opt-out provision, thus dramatically increasing the size of the class.

Meanwhile, delegation clauses, like the one set forth under (3) above, seem to cause consternation in courts across the nation.  Even the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that courts are the typical adjudicators of whether the parties have agreed to arbitrate in the first instance.  Because a delegation clause puts this determination in the hands of the arbitrator instead, it must be clear and unmistakable.  In Uber’s case, the clause was clear, but it was made ambiguous because it conflicted with other clauses contained in the Agreements.  For instance, a separate clause in Uber’s 2013 and 2014 driver agreements stated that the state and federal courts in San Francisco had exclusive jurisdiction over any disputes, actions, or claims arising out of the Agreement.  While Uber argued that the forum selection clause reserving jurisdiction in San Francisco courts was for any disputes found not subject to arbitration, Judge Chen did not buy into that argument.  He felt the clauses conflicted, and since the courts would have to apply rules of construction to resolve the ambiguity created by the competing clauses, that meant that the delegation clause was not clear and unmistakable, and therefore, was unenforceable.

The arbitration provision in Uber’s 2013 and 2014 Agreements also addressed responsibility for payment of the arbitrator’s fees.  It provided that if applicable law did not require Uber to pay for all of the costs and fees of arbitration, then the costs would be apportioned between the parties as required by law.  Judge Chen found that because the delegation clause would force drivers to pay exorbitant fees just to arbitrate whether or not their substantive disputes even belonged before the arbitrator in the first place, when drivers would not have to pay a court to make that determination, such a clause deprived drivers of any forum for their claims.

The arbitration provision contained three additional unfavorable terms which Judge Chen found were not sufficiently highlighted for the drivers’ attention.  For one, the confidentiality clause precluded the parties from disclosing the existence, contents, or results of any arbitration.  For another, the intellectual property carve-out clause excluded intellectual property disputes from arbitration – something the Court found favored Uber.  Finally, the unilateral modification clause permitted Uber to unilaterally modify the terms of the agreement without notice to the drivers.  As a result of all of the foregoing issues, the Court found the agreements to arbitrate were unconscionable.  Thus, Judge Chen refused to enforce them.

Can an enforceable arbitration agreement even be written? 

Arbitration agreements are evaluated on a case-by-case basis.  While many are still disfavored, as I mentioned earlier, they are more likely to be upheld if they are not unconscionable.  The procedural component of the unconscionability analysis usually deals with the formation of the agreement itself.  This includes the characteristics of the parties (e.g., age, literacy, sophistication), the manner and circumstances under which the contract was executed, and whether terms of the agreement are hidden or complex, among other things.  The substantive component looks at the unfairness of the agreement.  Judge Chen, acknowledging that the issue wasn’t fully settled, nevertheless evaluated the arbitration provision through the lens of an employer/employee relationship.  Let me provide some tips that make arbitration agreements more likely to be upheld by courts in the employment context.

  • Keep your agreement to arbitrate in a separate document requiring a separate acknowledgement.

  • While the agreement may cover all workplace disputes between the parties, do not preclude employees from filing charges with state or federal administrative agencies, like the EEOC.

  • If you reserve the right to modify or discontinue the arbitration clause, include a requirement that notice will be given to employees and that the modification or rescission will be applied prospectively.

  • Since cost is a big issue for courts reviewing these agreements, make sure the employee will only be required to pay what the arbitrator finds is reasonable should the employee lose, or make sure the costs to pursue arbitration are not more costly than those to bring a lawsuit.

  • The remedies available in arbitration should be similar to those available in court.

  • Avoid delegation clauses.

As always, there is no substitute for consulting with an attorney when attempting to draft one of these agreements.

ARTICLE BY Vanessa L. Goddard of Steptoe & Johnson PLLC
© Steptoe & Johnson PLLC. All Rights Reserved.

Supreme Court Rules Against Freezing "Untainted" Assets

In a ruling that could have far-reaching implications for criminal defendants’ right to counsel of their choice, the Supreme Court decided on March 30, 2016 that the government cannot freeze “untainted” assets that are not related to any alleged wrongdoing. Reaching this conclusion, the Court overturned an Eleventh Circuit decision affirming an order freezing a defendant’s assets that, while not obtained as a result of, or traceable to, the criminal conduct alleged, represented property of “equivalent value” to the illegal proceeds.

Writing for the majority in Luis v. United States, 578 U.S. ___ (2016), Justice Breyer, joined by Justice Roberts, Ginsburg and Sotomayor, drew a bright constitutional line, rooted in principles of property law, between tainted and untainted assets.  The Court stated that the latter “belongs to the defendant, pure and simple.  In this respect, it differs from a robber’s loot, a drug seller’s cocaine, a burglar’s tools, or other property associated with the planning, implementation, or concealing of a crime.”  Weighing these property rights, together with the “fundamental character” of a criminal defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel, against the government’s stated interests, the Court reasoned that “in our view, insofar as innocent (i.e., untainted) funds are needed to obtain counsel of choice, we believe that the Sixth Amendment prohibits the court order that the Government seeks.”

The Court found further support for its decision in the fact that, absent the ability to use untainted funds to secure counsel, “[t]hese defendants, rendered indigent, would fall back upon publicly paid counsel, including overworked and underpaid public defenders” and that “increasing the government-paid-defender workload [would] render less effective the basic right the Sixth Amendment seeks to protect.”

The majority’s opinion also sought to address the concerns of the dissenting justices that, given the fungible nature of money, “sometimes it will be difficult to say whether a particular bank account contains tainted or untainted funds.”  Justice Breyer noted that “the law has tracing rules that help courts implement the kind of distinction we require in this case.”

Notably, while the petitioner’s assets in Luis had been frozen under a statute applying to violations of health care laws,” see 18 U.S.C. § 1345(a), the same statute also applies to a wide range of white collar crimes, including bank theft and bribery, as well as money laundering.

Article By Glen A. Kopp & David A. Shargel of Bracewell LLP

© 2016 Bracewell LLP

Supreme Court Rules Against Freezing “Untainted” Assets

In a ruling that could have far-reaching implications for criminal defendants’ right to counsel of their choice, the Supreme Court decided on March 30, 2016 that the government cannot freeze “untainted” assets that are not related to any alleged wrongdoing. Reaching this conclusion, the Court overturned an Eleventh Circuit decision affirming an order freezing a defendant’s assets that, while not obtained as a result of, or traceable to, the criminal conduct alleged, represented property of “equivalent value” to the illegal proceeds.

Writing for the majority in Luis v. United States, 578 U.S. ___ (2016), Justice Breyer, joined by Justice Roberts, Ginsburg and Sotomayor, drew a bright constitutional line, rooted in principles of property law, between tainted and untainted assets.  The Court stated that the latter “belongs to the defendant, pure and simple.  In this respect, it differs from a robber’s loot, a drug seller’s cocaine, a burglar’s tools, or other property associated with the planning, implementation, or concealing of a crime.”  Weighing these property rights, together with the “fundamental character” of a criminal defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel, against the government’s stated interests, the Court reasoned that “in our view, insofar as innocent (i.e., untainted) funds are needed to obtain counsel of choice, we believe that the Sixth Amendment prohibits the court order that the Government seeks.”

The Court found further support for its decision in the fact that, absent the ability to use untainted funds to secure counsel, “[t]hese defendants, rendered indigent, would fall back upon publicly paid counsel, including overworked and underpaid public defenders” and that “increasing the government-paid-defender workload [would] render less effective the basic right the Sixth Amendment seeks to protect.”

The majority’s opinion also sought to address the concerns of the dissenting justices that, given the fungible nature of money, “sometimes it will be difficult to say whether a particular bank account contains tainted or untainted funds.”  Justice Breyer noted that “the law has tracing rules that help courts implement the kind of distinction we require in this case.”

Notably, while the petitioner’s assets in Luis had been frozen under a statute applying to violations of health care laws,” see 18 U.S.C. § 1345(a), the same statute also applies to a wide range of white collar crimes, including bank theft and bribery, as well as money laundering.

Article By Glen A. Kopp & David A. Shargel of Bracewell LLP

© 2016 Bracewell LLP

Supreme Court Rules Public Sector Union Agency Fees Still Alive

The U.S. Supreme Court was equally divided 4-to-4 on a case that asked the Justices whether to overturn long-established law that allows a public sector union to charge an agency or service fee to those employees who choose not to join the union. With the Court equally split, the lower court’s decision is automatically affirmed, and public sector unions can continue to charge agency fees to employees who do not join the union.

Overturning Abood Appeared A Real Possibility

In the 1977 Abood v. Detroit Board of Education decision, the Supreme Court ruled that unions could charge an agency fee to public employees who chose not to join the union to cover the union’s costs to negotiate a contract that covers all the public employees. For over thirty years, that has been settled law. In 2014, however, the Court suggested it might be willing to overturn Abood, questioning its analysis on several grounds, including whether a mandatory agency fee violates a non-union member’s First Amendment right to free speech.

That apparent willingness to overturn Abood set up the First Amendment challenge to public union agency fees in this term’s case of Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association. At the oral argument in Friedrichs in January, the Court’s more conservative Justices appeared ready to overrule Abood. Even the four more liberal Justices appeared to concede that the First Amendment argument may be tough to uphold but instead focused on the importance of not overturning prior rulings unless there is a compelling reason to do so. The long-standing Abood precedent appeared in jeopardy.

Justice Scalia’s Death Creates Stalemate 

Justice Antonin Scalia’s unexpected death in February left the Court at a 4-to-4 stalemate in Friedrichs. With the even split, the Ninth Circuit’s ruling applying Abood stands.

Opponents of unions and the Abood decision will have to wait for another case to work its way through the judicial system to raise the issue for consideration by a future Court. Of course, depending on who fills Justice Scalia’s vacancy, the majority of Justices may no longer have an appetite to reconsider Abood. We’ll all have to wait and see. In the meantime, public sector unions may continue to charge agency fees to those employees not paying union dues.

Article By Jason S. Ritchie of  Holland & Hart LLP

Copyright Holland & Hart LLP 1995-2016.

Ohio v. Sierra Club: The Integrity of the Clean Air Act

EPAYesterday, the Supreme Court of the United States announced it will not grant Certiorari in Ohio v. Sierra Club, et al. In this case, the Sixth Circuit found an area must adopt required pollution-control measures before the EPA can designate it as having satisfied the law’s health-based pollution standards.

In 1997, the EPA created the National Ambient Air Quality Standards of fine particulate matter in the air.  When the EPA created these standards, regions were designated as having met, or not met the air quality standards.  In order to meet the standards, states were required to adopt “reasonable measures and technologies” to reduce the pollution in the problematic areas.  In 2011, the EPA deemed Ohio to have met the appropriate standards because the air quality had improved. Ohio, however, had never created a pollution regulatory plan as the Clean Air Act required. In response, the Sierra Club filed suit alleging the EPA acted illegally by designated the areas as having met air quality standards.

Creating a pollution regulatory plan is crucial, according to Sanjay Narayan, the managing attorney for the Sierra Club on the case.  Before 1990, the Clean Air Act had no requirement that states produce an implementation plan.  According to Narayan, the expectation was “we [the EPA] don’t care how you get there, we aren’t going to tell you how to get there, we’re just going to check in at the deadline and expect you to have made it. And what happened was that the vast majority of the states did not meet the deadline.”

Narayan describes the implementation plan as “a show your math” requirement. This has been very useful in helping states create lasting change in their air quality–by creating a regulatory framework that shows how they can reduce air pollution, the states are more likely to meet their deadline.  Narayan points out “It’s also useful for other areas to know what worked and what successful areas did.  Here’s what turned out to be cost effective, that kind of record is tremendously useful as we move forward on what was meant to be a nation-wide campaign for healthy air for the public.”

In  Ohio v. Sierra Club, there are a few details to consider.  Pollution decreased, and that’s the goal.  However, it might not be that simple.  In the years preceding Ohio’s drop in air pollution, the economy crashed.  Narayan draws comparisons to the Beijing Olympics, saying, “When people aren’t running their [industrial] plants for economic reasons, the air cleans up a little bit.  But it turns around quickly once you turn the plants back on.”  However, Ohio did meet the standard, and according to Narayan, to comply with the Clean Air Act they’d simply need to go back and show their work.  He says, “They did meet the standard, and they say they have all the controls they need in place.  There is a procedural step that Ohio hasn’t taken, and it shouldn’t be hard for Ohio to take it.”

The Sixth Circuit decision that currently stands requires Ohio to take those regulatory steps. In the current case, the Sixth Circuit agreed that the entire portion of the Clean Air Act must be followed, and that it wasn’t enough for Ohio to have simply met the standards.  Ohio has appealed to the Supreme Court.

Narayan says, “It’s about the integrity of the clean air act.”  These requirements are crucial in ensuring the air gets cleaned up in a timely manner.  Narayan says, Decades of experience has shown us that without these requirements, states miss deadlines, air pollution lasts for much longer than it should and the public really suffers.  The pollution sends kids to the hospital with asthma, it creates respiratory disease in the elderly-delay is a disaster for public health.”

Article By Eilene Spear & Nicole Cudiamat Minnis of The National Law Review / The National Law Forum LLC
Copyright ©2016 National Law Forum, LLC

Supreme Court Agrees to Review the Appropriate Measure of Design Patent Damages

On March 21, 2016, the Supreme Court agreed to hear Samsung Electronics Co.’s appeal regarding what it must pay Apple Inc. for infringing the design of Apple’s iPhone. This will mark the first time in over a century that the Supreme Court will hear a case involving design patents.

In 2012, a jury found that Samsung infringed Apple utility and design patents and awarded Apple $1.05 billion in damages. On appeal, damages were nearly cut in half to $548 million, which Samsung later agreed to pay to settle the dispute, all the while reserving its right to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Samsung has challenged the Federal Circuit’s decision that the company must pay its entire profits from smartphones that infringed Apple’s design patents, which amounted to $399 million. In making the damages determination, the Federal Circuit relied on Section 289 of the Patent Act, which dates to the 19th century and provides in relevant part: “[w]hoever during the term of a patent for a design, without license of the owner, (1) applies the patented design, or any colorable imitation thereof, to any article of manufacture for the purpose of sale, or (2) sells or exposes for sale any article of manufacture to which such design or colorable imitation has been applied shall be liable to the owner to the extent of his total profit.” 35. U.S.C. § 289 (emphasis added).

A number of tech companies, including Google and Facebook, submitted a brief in support of Samsung’s petition. In the brief, those companies argued that Section 289 is outdated and when enacted, failed to contemplate “products with significant functional features at all.” Thus, Section 289 is obsolete and should not govern awards involving the complex products available today.

When the Court hears the case later this term, the specific question it will address is, “Where a design patent is applied to only a component of a product, should an award of infringer’s profits be limited to those profits attributable to the component?”

Article by Kevin P. Moran & Joseph P. Serge of Michael Best & Friedrich LLP
© MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP

President Obama Announces Merrick Garland as Nominee to United States Supreme Court

In a ceremony in the White House Rose Garden President Obama nominated Merrick Garland to replace Scalia’s on the United States Supreme Court.  Garland would be the 113th justice, and he is a moderate circuit court judge who is well-respected by both Republicans and Democrats.

Finding Scalia’s replacement has already been contentious, but Garland is uniquely situated to handle the politics at hand.  In the mid-90’s, Garland faced a lengthy political battle that delayed his confirmation for the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

Obama has made it clear that he intends to fulfill his constitutional responsibility to nominate a Supreme Court Justice, despite calls that the decision wait for the next president.  Obama, in an email to his supporters indicated three tenets in his decision-making process.  He said he was looking for, “an independent mind, unimpeachable credentials and an unquestionable mastery of law” as well as an understanding of the limits of the court and that “justice is not about abstract legal theory, nor some footnote in a dusty casebook.”

Garland’s career has encompassed these tenets, as he used the law in emotional and difficult situations.  In 1995, he coordinated the Justice Department’s response to the Oklahoma City Bombing, immediately arriving on scene.  His hard work and dedication in that role helped cement his reputation and earned him respect on both sides of the aisle. In his formal announcement in the White House Rose Garden this morning, President Obama described Garland as:

More than just a brilliant legal mind. He is someone who has a keen understanding that justice is about more than abstract legal theory. More than some footnote in a dusty casebook. His life experience…informs his view that the law is more than an intellectual exercise. He understands the way the law affects the daily reality of how the law affects people’s lives in a big complicated democracy and rapidly changing times.

Garland, at 63, is an older nominee.  As a centrist nominee he has been on the list of potential nominees for years. Obama has made it clear that he thinks the Senate should move quickly to consider the nomination, as Garland is a qualified and suitable candidate for the job.  However, the nomination could be contentious, as Republican Senators have indicated an unwillingness to consider a candidate.  Additionally, with the court being evenly split, Garland, if confirmed, would be the deciding vote on many issues.

The White house has created a twitter handle @SCOTUSnom to provide up-to-date information on the nomination process.

Article By Eilene Spear of The National Law Review / The National Law Forum LLC

©2016 National Law Forum, LLC

SCOTUS Decision Affects Diversity Jurisdiction of Business Trusts

Many registered investment companies and real estate investment trusts are organized as business trusts. Certain states, such as Maryland, Delaware, and Massachusetts have been hospitable to such entities, and therefore are home to many of these entities. In some states, such as Massachusetts, the entities are formed as common-law trusts, while in others there is a statutory authorization for the formation of a business trust. However, unlike corporations which exist as “persons” for the purpose of legal actions, there have been questions raised as to whether business trusts have a separate legal existence.

The issue of whether a trust is a separate legal entity can impact how trusts access courts.  In a decision that could significantly impact the way in which business trusts determine the forum in which they sue or are sued, on March 7, 2016 the U.S. Supreme Court decided a case involving Americold Realty Trust. In that decision, the Court held that, unlike a corporation, a trust does not have a separate legal existence for the purpose of determining the citizenship of the entity.

The decision reaffirmed that a corporation is a citizen of the state in which it is organized (and the state in which it maintains its principal office, if different).  However, in an 8-0 decision, the Court held that trusts are not separate legal entities with a defined state of citizenship.  Rather, the citizenship of a business trust will be determined by where the beneficiaries of the trust are located.  For a large, publicly-owned business trust, such as a registered investment company or a REIT which have shareholders scattered in many or all of the states, that may effectively destroy any basis for such a trust to use diversity of citizenship to affect federal court jurisdiction.  If sued, this could force such entities to litigate in jurisdictions where the trust is not organized and does not maintain an office because an isolated shareholder resides in that jurisdiction.

While there may be little that investment companies or REITs can do to alter the impact of this decision, it will be interesting to see if the state laws authorizing such trusts can be revised in a way that may impact the consequences of this decision.

Article By Steven M. Felsenstein of Greenberg Traurig, LLP

©2016 Greenberg Traurig, LLP. All rights reserved.

What Does the US Supreme Court Ruling Mean for Local Affordable Housing Laws?

On February 29, the US Supreme Court denied certiorari in California Building Industry Association v. City of San Jose, 61 Cal. 4th 435 (2015), and leaves standing a unanimous decision by the California Supreme Court upholding the city of San Jose’s affordable housing ordinance.

San Jose’s ordinance compels all developers of new residential development projects with 20 or more units to reserve a minimum of 15 percent of for-sale units for low-income buyers, and the price of those units cannot exceed 30 percent of the buyers’ median income. The ordinance requires these restrictions to remain in place for 45 years. Alternatively, the developer can pay the city a fee in lieu. The California Building Industry Association argued that the ordinance was an unlawful exaction in violation of Nollan v. California Coastal Comm’n, 483 U.S. 825 (1987), Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374 (1994), and Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District, 133 S. Ct. 2586 (2013). In a June 15, 2015 decision, the California Supreme Court disagreed, concluding that the ordinance is not an exaction because it does not require a developer to give up a property interest, but instead a typical zoning restriction subject to rational basis review.

In concurring with the US Supreme Court’s denial of certiorari in this case, Associate Justice Clarence Thomas acknowledged the important issues raised in California Building Industry Association, perhaps signaling the Court may revisit this issue. In particular, Justice Thomas stated, “For at least two decades . . . lower courts have divided over whether the Nollan/Dolan test applies in cases where the alleged taking arises from a legislatively imposed condition rather than an administrative one. . . . I continue to doubt that ‘the existence of a taking should turn on the type of governmental entity responsible for the taking. . . . Until we decide this issue, property owners and local governments are left uncertain about what legal standard governs legislative ordinances and whether cities can legislatively impose exactions that would not pass muster if done administratively.”

Ultimately, however, Justice Thomas determined that California Building Industry Association did not provide an opportunity to decide the conflict: “The City raises threshold questions about the timeliness of the petition for certiorari that might preclude us from reaching the Takings Clause question. Moreover, petitioner disclaimed any reliance on Nollan and Dolan in the proceedings below. Nor did the California Supreme Court’s decision rest on the distinction (if any) between takings effectuated through administrative versus legislative action.”

The denial of certiorari leaves in place similar “inclusionary” affordable housing programs that have been adopted in more than 170 California municipalities.

Article By Bryan K. Brown, Cynthia L. Burch, David P. Cohen & Kenneth G. Lore

©2016 Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP