Understand Your Rights. Solve Your Legal Problems
Robinhood CEO Vlad Tenev will testify before Congress on Thursday, explaining his platform’s decision to abruptly suspend trading in GameStop and other volatile stocks during a retail investment rush in January.
Reddit CEO and co-founder Steve Huffman, Citadel CEO Kenneth Griffin, Melvin Capital CEO Gabriel Plotkin and influential online trader Keith Gill are also set to testify before the US House Financial Services Committee.
The purpose of the Thursday hearing is to give the committee a better sense of what occurred during the week of frenzied trading. Speaking with CNBC, MP Securities analyst Devin Ryan predicted that the hearing “will focus on understanding exactly what occurred during the week of service disruptions, making sure that all activity was appropriate and also determining how to avoid a similar event in the future.”
In the three weeks that have passed since Robinhood restricted trading in several equities at the centre of the buying frenzy sparked by investment forum r/WallStreetBets, Robinhood has been sued more than 90 times by investors claiming that the platform’s actions were unlawful.
However, it is unlikely that many of the aggrieved investors will receive a day in court, as a clause in Robinhood’s user agreement requires disputes brought by users to be settled in arbitration rather than the civil court system. There is potential for a class action lawsuit to move forward in spite of this, due to US regulations.
[ymal]
During an interview with Tesla CEO Elon Musk, Vlad Tenev described Robinhood’s decision as necessary to meet clearinghouse deposit requirements, and not an attempt to manipulate the market in favour of Wall Street short-sellers who were being squeezed.
Tenev dismissed claims that Robinhood’s hand was forced by partner Citadel Securities as “getting into conspiracy theories”.
Global payments giant Mastercard has come under investigation by Switzerland’s competition authority as part of a probe into whether the company broke national rules governing transactions using other banks’ cash machines.
Switzerland’s National Cash Scheme (NCS) is a new set of rules that allows bank cards to be used at any ATM operated by Swiss banks instead of being limited to those run by their issuing bank.
The initiative was created by SIX, a company which operates various facets of Switzerland’s financial infrastructure, including the national stock exchange. SIX complained last year that Mastercard was refusing to link its cards to the new system, potentially obstructing the rollout of NCS.
The Swiss Competition Commission (COMCO) is now investigating these allegations.
“The obstruction occurs because Mastercard refuses to co-badge the NCS on the new debit Mastercard,” a spokesperson for the watchdog said in a statement on Tuesday, referring to the practice of adding a second payment application or brand onto a debit card.
The spokesperson added: “COMCO is now investigating whether Mastercard has abused its position as a dominant company. Precautionary measures were taken for the duration of the investigation.”
COMCO did not give any guidance as to the timing of the investigation, which may last for years.
[ymal]
A spokesperson for Mastercard said that the firm is aware of COMCO’s investigation, but noted that it is “an interim procedural step and does not imply any breach of Swiss Competition law by Mastercard or any other player.”
“Mastercard is of the opinion that the Commission’s decision to impose interim measures is not justified and intends to appeal these measures,” the spokesperson concluded.
If your child is injured at school, it’s important to keep a clear head and work out what to do next. Read on for some advice, so you are prepared if the worst does happen.
Before worrying about what happened and who is at fault, deal with your child first. They will likely be upset and want you there with them. They may even be in the hospital and you will have to deal with that before talking to the school.
If there has been an accident involving your child, the school will most likely call you. Depending on the severity of the incident, collect your child and take them for a check-up or a trip to the ER. If the accident is really bad, your child might already have been transported to hospital.
Once you are happy your child is going to be OK, it’s time to speak to the school to find out what happened.
Before you start blaming anyone and everyone, get the facts of what happened straight in your mind. Speak to your child’s teacher or principal. Try to stay calm and definitely don’t lose your temper, even if you feel the school is at fault in some way.
It’s very important to get the facts of the case. The school may not be at fault if your child was misbehaving in some way or in an area they were not supposed to access. The injury could also have been caused by another child as part of a playground fight.
[ymal]
It’s a good idea to record any conversations you have with the school. There are lots of apps that can do this for you. If there were any witnesses, such as other children, speak to them. If you plan on filing a lawsuit against the school for negligence, the evidence is important, so collect as much as possible in the preliminary stages while everyone is off-guard.
Once you know the facts, you can decide what to do next. If you decide to take legal action, consult a reputable attorney with experience of personal injury claims. They will be able to advise you on whether you have a legitimate claim and any hope of compensation for your child.
Schools are obliged to do everything in their power to provide a safe environment for children. This means the fixtures and fittings should be well maintained and safe, and students should be properly supervised at all times. The school’s duty of care extends to school transport if it is provided by the school, so if your child has an accident on a school bus, the school is at fault. Schools are also supposed to prevent bullying by other pupils or abuse by teachers and other adults in positions of authority.
If you have any reason to believe that your child’s school could and should have prevented your child from being injured in any way, always consult a lawyer for advice.
Global law firm Jones Day confirmed on Tuesday that a file transfer platform it used was recently compromised, affecting data held by the firm.
California-based cloud computing company Accelion “was recently compromised and information taken,” according to a statement on Sunday from Dave Petrou, Jones Day’s senior manager of global public relations.
"Jones Day's network has not been breached. Nor has Jones Day been the subject of a ransomware attack," Petrou specified. He added that the firm will continue to address the incident “with affected clients and appropriate authorities.”
Jones Day’s confirmation comes as hackers going by the name Clop claimed to have stolen documents from the firm, posting screenshots allegedly taken from their files on DataBreaches.net over the weekend.
The screenshots appeared to be of both a “confidential mediation brief” addressed to a judge and a cover letter for some “confidential documents” addressed to counsel on all sides of an ongoing case. Both documents were written on Jones Day letterhead.
The news follows two weeks after internal communications at Goodwin Procter revealed that some of its clients’ data may have been exposed during a breach affecting a third-party vendor. Goodwin Procter did not name Accelion in its correspondence.
[ymal]
Jones Day is a US firm based in Cleveland, Ohio. It holds a staff of over 2,500 attorneys worldwide, with prominent clients including Fortune 500 companies and a gross annual revenue of over $2 billion per year. It has recently faced criticism for representing the Republican Party in post-election litigation in Pennsylvania.
The law protects and allows victims to recover from damages and injuries that are caused by another. Presenting your case to court allows you to receive the compensation that you need to pay medical fees and other expenses. It also allows you to receive justice after going through a traumatic event.
Despite that, some victims still feel hesitant to seek legal assistance. Fear, doubts, and lack of information about the proper procedures contribute to that hesitation. But for incidents like this, it is best to reach out to a personal injury lawyer who can advise you of the proper action to take so that your rights and interests will be fully protected.
Below, we will discuss when you should make a personal injury claim.
Many cases would usually involve multiple parties such as rear-end car accidents. In these instances, each party is financially accountable for damages and injuries that were caused to the other.
Oftentimes, the driver who caused the crash bears most of the fault. However, the penalty could be reduced if it is found that there was contributory negligence on your part or from the other parties. Rear-end crashes are often complicated, and it is sometimes hard to determine who is actually at fault.
If you were injured in a car accident and multiple drivers could be blamed, you might want to hire and consult a competent lawyer at an auto accident law firm. A legal representative can send demand letters on your behalf, and even help you initiate court proceedings to compel the other parties to settle any damages caused to your car. Through your lawyer, you can also demand reimbursement for the medical bills you incurred due to the accident.
If you were injured in a car accident and multiple drivers could be blamed, you might want to hire and consult a competent lawyer at an auto accident law firm.
You acquired an insurance policy for a reason—and that is to be protected. Unfortunately, some insurance companies take advantage of policyholders who have no idea of the processes involved in making a personal injury claim.
These companies may immediately offer settlement fees that are less than a fraction of what you should have received. Some may even attempt to circumvent the policy and claim that the incident is not covered.
A lawyer, however, can help demand insurance claims on your behalf. A lawyer would know how to interpret the insurance contract with your best interests in mind. You can be assured that your lawyer can argue the terms and conditions of the policy in your favor.
Failure to file a lawsuit within a specific period may permanently bar your claim. This is what the statute of limitations means. However, the period may vary depending on your state. In some states, personal injury claims based on negligence should be filed or raised within just a year from the accident. Some states, however, allow a six-year limitation for such claims.
Moreover, keep in mind that a single lawsuit can have multiple claims that might be subject to varying limitations. With this, it would be better to reach out to a lawyer right after the accident so you can file your case on time and increase your chances of receiving the compensation you truly deserve.
[ymal]
The process of making a personal injury claim may seem overwhelming or stressful. However, it is crucial to remember that a competent attorney will be with you in every single undertaking. Likewise, there are personal injury law firms that offer free consultations, so you don’t have to be afraid about initial costs. Aside from that, you don’t have to settle every claim in court. Your lawyer may instead facilitate a settlement that will be fair to you and all the other parties involved.
Written by Stephen O’Dowd, Senior Director of Litigation Funding at Harbour.
The UK has a first-class legal system. Its quality was recently on display in the landmark test case brought by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) in June 2020. The FCA sought clarity as to whether a variety of insurance policies, purchased by UK businesses, provided cover for COVID-19 related losses. By January 2021, the case had been fully and finally resolved by a decision of the Supreme Court.
Securing a judgment from the UK’s highest court only seven months after commencement of proceedings is impressive. Doing so at the height of a global pandemic, in a case of such complexity, is extraordinary.
The Supreme Court’s ruling means tens of thousands of policyholders will now have their claims for COVID-19 losses paid by insurers. One of the insurers in question is Hiscox, whose blanket coverage denial was challenged, most notably, by a collective of policyholders known as the Hiscox Action Group. The Group, comprising more than 350 businesses advised by Mishcon de Reya and backed by Harbour’s funding, played an important role in the outcome of the FCA’s test case.
The Hiscox Action Group’s ability to aggregate and pursue hundreds of similar claims seems like another positive advertisement for the UK legal system. On closer examination, however, the Group’s case highlights a defect in the system, namely the lack of a generic class action framework to support it.
The distinction between opt-out and opt-in is key in the context of an effective class action.
Class Actions: Opting in or out?
A class action enables claims with common issues to be resolved in a single case. Proceedings can be brought by one claimant on its own behalf and as a representative of others. The representative’s proceeding defines the group or ‘class’, and automatically includes all claims within that class unless a class member expressly opts out.
The distinction between opt-out and opt-in is key in the context of an effective class action. The Hiscox Action Group’s case is structured like a class action, and enjoys certain efficiencies associated with the same, but it is not actually a class action. It is not supported by a class action framework, and it is opt-in only.
This means that every individual member of the Hiscox Action Group has signed up to a retainer with Mishcon de Reya, a funding agreement with Harbour, and Terms of Reference governing the operation of a Steering Committee that is responsible for the day-to-day running of the case. This structure, although sound, requires considerable time, effort and cost to put in place. It is, on the whole, a workable solution for a group comprising several hundred members. However, the larger the class size, the more a structure of this nature will feel the strain.
A similar structure appears to have been used by victims of a cyber-attack at British Airways in 2018. Over 400,000 passengers had their personal and financial details stolen, and it is reported that a group of more than 16,000 passengers has been formed, on an opt-in basis, in order to bring proceedings against British Airways. On the one hand, the effort required to form a group of this size should be applauded. And yet, on the other hand, there are approximately 384,000 victims whose claims will not be determined by this opt-in action.
The UK has a relatively new class action regime that is restricted to competition claims only.
The current status of UK class actions
Legal systems such as those in the US, Canada and Australia have well-established class action regimes. These regimes are generic, meaning that all types of group litigation are supported by a clear statutory framework.
By contrast, the UK has a relatively new class action regime that is restricted to competition claims only. The regime, which is presided over by the Competition Appeals Tribunal (CAT), is in effect a pilot scheme whose success, or otherwise, will likely inform the UK government as to the implementation of a more generic regime for other types of claim.
This wait-and-see approach is in danger of damaging the leading status of the UK legal system. Take, for example, the case of Lloyd v Google. The case concerns allegations that Google, using the ‘Safari Workaround’, exploited private information about the internet usage of around four million UK Apple iPhone owners. It would be practically impossible to form an opt-in group of anything like four million claimants, so in the absence of a generic class action regime to support his claim, Mr Lloyd is attempting to rely on an existing mechanism in the UK legal system. That is, the use of Civil Procedure Rule (CPR) 19.6 to enable him to act as representative for the entire class on an opt-out basis.
This wait-and-see approach is in danger of damaging the leading status of the UK legal system.
Mr Lloyd needed the court’s permission to serve his claim on Google in the US, and to get his proceedings underway. Permission was refused at first instance, with the High Court ruling that Mr Lloyd’s claim had no real prospect of success and was not suitable to be run as a representative action. But on appeal, the Court of Appeal overturned this ruling, stating that “this representative action is in practice the only way in which these claims can be pursued. It is not disproportionate to pursue such litigation in circumstances where, as was common ground, there will…be no other remedy”.
The Court of Appeal’s focus on remedy is important. A sophisticated legal system must provide all victims, including the victims of mass harm, with a means of redress. The Court of Appeal’s ruling will soon be scrutinised by the Supreme Court, and it remains to be seen whether or not Mr Lloyd’s claim will establish a new procedural framework, under CPR 19.6, for the conduct of mass data breach claims on an opt-out basis.
Which way the Supreme Court will decide is currently unknown. The Court’s recent ruling in the case of Merricks v MasterCard could be an indication of its mindset, although a key difference between Lloyd and Merricks is that Merricks is a competition case being run pursuant to the CAT’s class-action regime, whereas Lloyd is not. There is, however, a common theme present in both decisions, and that is the sentiment that the UK legal system should enable victims of mass harm to seek redress.
Again, we see the UK’s most senior judges emphasising the right of all victims of wrongdoing, including victims of mass harm, to be compensated.
Mr Merricks has applied for his case to be certified as a class action, whereby he will act as representative for some 46 million people with estimated aggregate damages of around £14 billion. Mr Merricks’ application was initially refused by the CAT, but on final appeal the Supreme Court ruled that the CAT had erred in its approach, having set the bar for certification too high.
Two statements of the Supreme Court are of note. First, “anti-competitive conduct may never be effectively restrained in the future if wrongdoers cannot be brought to book by the masses of individual consumers who may bear the ultimate loss from misconduct which has already occurred”. And second, “…as the Court of Appeal observed… a refusal of certification of a case like the present is likely to make it certain that the rights of consumers arising out of a proven infringement will never be vindicated, because individual claims are likely to be a practical impossibility. The evident purpose of the statutory scheme was to facilitate rather than to impede the vindication of those rights”.
Again, we see the UK’s most senior judges emphasising the right of all victims of wrongdoing, including victims of mass harm, to be compensated.
The value of class actions
The term ‘class action’ can provoke an emotive reaction in some quarters. The most vehement opponents of class actions conjure up dramatic images of floodgates being smashed open, and a legal system overwhelmed by a tsunami of meritless litigation backed by entrepreneurial funders.
In order for the UK legal system to maintain its first-class status, it requires a generic class action regime.
The truth is much more benign. Litigation funders take great care to back only the strongest class actions precisely because their commission is dependent on the action succeeding and damages being recovered from the opponent. Also, there are numerous safeguards present in the UK legal system to ensure the floodgates remain firmly intact. Most notably, UK litigation is subject to the loser pays principle, which acts as a strong deterrent against meritless claims because the loser, or his/her funder, must pay a large portion of the opponent’s legal costs. In the context of class actions, those costs are often significant.
Emotive arguments surrounding class actions are an unhelpful distraction. In order for the UK legal system to maintain its first-class status, it requires a generic class action regime. At a time when class actions are gaining momentum around the world, and victims of mass harm have access to litigation funding and the ability to forum-shop, the UK must offer them an effective means of redress.
A Trump-era bid by the US government to ban social media app TikTok were put on hold on Wednesday, indicating that the Biden administration is backing off the pressure on the company.
The Department of Justice (DOJ) told appeals courts for the Third Circuit and the District of Columbia to freeze government appeals of lower court rulings that blocked restrictions imposed on TikTok parent company ByteDance by the Trump Administration.
Under former President Donald Trump, the US Commerce Department sought to ban Apple and Google app stores from hosting the TikTok app and bar technical transactions necessary to its operation in the US. Yesterday, the DOJ said in court filings that the Commerce Department “plans to conduct an evaluation of the underlying record justifying those prohibitions”.
White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki told reporters during a Wednesday briefing that there is no specific timetable for the Biden administration’s review of TikTok and other issues related to Chinese companies.
Aside from ByteDance, the previous US administration levied restrictions against many Chinese-owned tech firms, citing their potential use by the Chinese government to obtain the private data of US citizens.
The move by the Trump administration to ban TikTok led to the proposal of a deal where US companies Walmart and Oracle would take over the app’s US operations. However, the terms of this agreement were not fully revealed, and its status during the current round of reviews is unknown.
[ymal]
TikTok, which has over 100 million active US users, has denied allegations that its users’ data could be obtained by the Chinese government.
Katya Linossi, CEO and co-founder of ClearPeople, explores how firms can use technology and effective communication to enhance employee productivity and focus.
The pandemic has resulted in a necessary digital evolution within the legal sector - experiencing more technological advancement over the last year than in the previous decade.
The firms that take advantage of new solutions are able to rise above competitors and establish themselves as leaders in their sector. By using new solutions, firms can enhance many aspects of their day-to-day work, including employee attention, to continue developing during challenging times.
A simple yet significant example is the approach to working from home - something that is still relatively new for the sector. The forced requirement of immediate changes to habits has naturally caused significant disruption for many.
Whilst working away from the office, employees have never been more connected with the world, whilst also less connected with one another. With an increase of data and constant communication streams open between colleagues and clients, an unconsidered issue for many is how employees are at risk of being overwhelmed and unable to remain as productive as they were.
The opportunity is to utilise new innovations in work effectively. Technology has the ability to enhance employee attention by enabling greater access to knowledge and data through simple systems like the cloud, but it must be understood and structured effectively.
Whilst working away from the office, employees have never been more connected with the world, whilst also less connected with one another.
Having worked closely with the legal sector for almost seventeen years, I've witnessed the success and failures of firms exploring new solutions. The obstacle is often simply understanding what is required by focusing on your users and how to best implement these solutions. With the pandemic, everyone was forced into making these decisions immediately, without the ability to truly understand or analyse their impact on productivity. It’s clear that we’ll be working remotely for the foreseeable future, so now is the time to truly engage with the solutions available to the legal sector.
Working from home has become the norm for most industries, but some firms were initially reluctant to utilise cloud systems due to security concerns. Firms have used temporary workarounds such as VPNs or hybrid-cloud logins, allowing access to their data in the short-term.
Patchwork solutions like this can cause more issues than they solve and place significant challenges on the most basic tasks. It is therefore essential for law firms to provide employees with simple access to the tools and information that they need.
Examples like these demonstrate why a fully digital workspace is the solution to overcoming the burden of remote work. A “digital workspace” is not just an intranet or ‘comms’ platform, but a collection of evolving technologies, acting as a hub for employees so that they have instant and secure access to everything they need to get work done.
Organisations who have taken this leap and have invested in digital workspaces have realised it is easy to make the most of this cloud infrastructure platform. This ability to break down barriers to knowledge sharing and data silos convinced firms like Weightman’s - a top 45 UK law firm - to commit to full digitalisation.
It is essential for law firms to provide employees with simple access to the tools and information that they need.
Weightman’s IT director Kevin Brown explained: “We really wanted to remove the firm-wide reliance on network shares, duplications and out-of-date documents. Since switching to a fully digital workspace, it has allowed us to manage our documents more easily and make them more useful and accessible within our teams.”
Providing employees with the right information at the right time ultimately helps to focus employees’ attention when it is needed the most.
Attention is not just about the ability to focus on work, but also about the engagement of employees. Efficient communication helps to channel focus, as well as empower colleagues through knowledge sharing.
Although some firms have moved to a more modern approach, many law firms have been slow to adapt and are still using legacy approaches, such as emails, to communicate with each other. This is a method that many want to change but may not know how.
By using a digital workspace, firms can enhance the collaboration between colleagues by fostering more connections from anywhere in the world - something we have seen be particularly helpful for international firms. By opening up communication channels, firms can drive the collaborative culture required for a disparate team to succeed and enhance productivity.
[ymal]
It is important to note that there is a balance between too much and too little communication and knowledge. Individuals either have limited knowledge, leaving them unable to act, or too much, delaying any progress due to information overload. Distracting employees from their work has a massive impact on key relationships, especially when they need to be maintained for the long term. Firms, therefore, need to create boundaries and specific channels of communication for queries, general chat and clients. Employers should also encourage their staff to turn off notifications when their work requires high attention to detail and focus.
Looking forward, law firms have an opportunity to assess how they can tie these communication streams together when returning to the office, with a ‘hybrid’ model of working likely to become the norm for most firms. Law firms who support their employees in these transitions, and who are at the forefront of change, will make work accessible for all by creating a flexible working environment. By opening these doors to skilled workers, such as working mothers, firms will be able to attract new talent for future generations - ultimately leading to long term success and profitability.
Attention is scarce and the mindset around working from home needs to change. The industry needs to understand that previous systems that were used to work pre-pandemic are no longer relevant. Firms need to accept that taking the time to assess their habits and make the leap to a digital transition is essential to rise above their competition. One approach to do this is simple - by adopting the correct digital strategies to enhance worker’s attention, they will ultimately help to foster greater productivity.
As Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella said: “Data is plentiful. Attention is scarce, and we'll never get more of it.”
Nasdaq Inc, the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) and Cboe Global Markets have each sued the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), seeking to halt the regulator’s planned overhaul of public data feeds that broadcast stock prices to investors, according to court filings.
Under the SEC plan, which was approved by the regulator in December, public feeds would be expanded to include supply and demand data for stocks, allowing greater access to information that the exchanges currently sell to professional traders at a premium.
The companies that have filed suit against the SEC are seeking to block the new rules on the grounds that they constitute an overreach of authority by the regulator.
“The rule is arbitrary, capricious and otherwise not in accordance with law and does not promote efficiency, competition and capital formation,” the NYSE said in its suit.
A spokesperson for Nasdaq echoed the sentiment in a statement to The Wall Street Journal. “The SEC exceeded its authority with this ill-conceived remake of market structure,” they said. “This will make markets more complex and costly.”
Cboe and the SEC declined to comment on the litigation.
The new lawsuits are the latest move in a series of legal actions made by the three companies against the SEC in recent years over attempts to curb their market power. Last year, the companies won a separate legal challenge against a proposed experiment by the SEC that would have capped trading fees on 1,400 different stocks.
[ymal]
The SEC is also dealing with other lawsuits, including action from Citadel Securities in October over the regulator’s approval of a new stock order type introduced by stock exchange operator IEX Group Inc.
The companies filed their complaints in the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
The family of a 20-year-old man who committed suicide last year have sued trading app Robinhood over his death.
The complaint states that 20-year-old Alex Kearns was led to believe he had fallen $730,000 in debt when he took his life in June. Alex’s parents, Dan and Dorothy Kearns, said their son was unable to receive adequate support from customer services before his suicide.
The lawsuit, which seeks unspecified damages, also alleges negligent infliction of emotional distress and unfair business practices, claiming that Alex was lured into using Robinhood through the app’s strategy of “gamifying” their services to attract inexperienced investors.
"Though Alex was merely a senior in high school when he opened an account with Robinhood and had little or no income, Robinhood determined he was qualified enough to enter into the world of trading sophisticated financial options," the Kearnses said in the complaint. "Not only did Robinhood permit Alex to open the account, but when Alex was a freshman in college later that year, it permitted him to trade options."
Not only was Alex put in a position to lose hundreds of thousands of dollars without investment guidance or effective customer service, the suit claims, but he was misled into thinking that he had. The app showed that he had a $730,000 negative cash balance, which is not the same as regular debt, but caused Alex to panic and reach out to Robinhood, who did not explain the distinction and instead demanded large cash deposits to cover the balance.
In a statement to the BBC, Robinhood said they were “devastated” by Alex’s death and hade made improvements to their platform.
[ymal]
The Robinhood app, which describes itself as being “on a mission to democratise finance”, recently made headlines for limiting sales of certain shares to its users after US retailer Gamestop saw an unprecedented surge.
