During a May 2014 trip to London, I had the pleasure of meeting with various attorneys who do work with institutional investors such as pension funds.
A 2013 Ponemon Institute research report on Medical Identity Theft gave some good news… 64% of those interviewed who had been victims of medical identity theft reported they incurred $0 in additional out-of-pocket expense. For those companies whose systems had been the source of the stolen medical identities this was good news.
As Consumers Push for More Competitive Internet Marketplace, It’s Important to Remember Courts’ Role
As the Internet grows more and more ubiquitous in our lives, it’s about time that legislation is finally catching up. Much has been made of net neutrality lately, so how did we get here? A recent article for The New York Times says that it might have nothing to do with technology and everything to do with economics.
The Third Circuit recently ruled in Grandalski v. Quest Diagnostics, Inc., that the common law claims in a nationwide class action were not appropriate for class treatment because the court would be required to conduct an individual analysis and application of each state’s law and therefore common questions of law did not predominate.
Freedom from Religion Foundation: Seventh Circuit Reminds That Standing is Every Plaintiff’s Cross to Bear
There is something to be said for not paying your taxes. At least, that is one lesson that the plaintiffs may have learned from the Seventh Circuit’s opinion last Thursday in Freedom from Religion Foundation, Inc. v. Lew, No. 14-1152 (7th Cir. Nov. 13, 2014).
Removing All Doubt: The First Circuit Clarifies the Conditions Triggering the 30-Day Removal Window When the Earlier, Initial Pleading Does Not Disclose Grounds for Removal
In Romulus v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., No. 14-1937, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 20548 (1st Cir. Oct. 24, 2014), the First Circuit Court of Appeals clarified the conditions triggering a defendant’s 30-day window to remove a case to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1332, when the earlier, initial pleading did not disclose a basis for CAFA removal.
In yet another decision rejecting a settlement of an employment class action, the Northern District of California refused to approve a settlement of a wage and hour suit due to numerous problems with the resolution reached between the parties.
Import laws and custom duties are not areas of the law into which I frequently (or lightly) venture, but I delve into these topics here and now because developments in these areas have served up yet another example where individual corporate officers have been held liable personally for matters that previously had been regarded exclusively as the source of corporate liability.
On October 28, 2014, the United States Federal Trade Commission (FTC) sued AT&T’s mobile division in the Northern District of California (F.T.C. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, Case No._ [N.D. Cal., Oct. 28, 2014] “AT&T Mobility”).
Class Actions and Consumer Product Settlements: In Canada, the Proof is in (the Receipt for) the Pudding
Consumers don’t keep their receipts. This poses a unique challenge in consumer product class actions, especially when parties seek the Court’s approval of a settlement that requires a receipt as proof of purchase.