Understand Your Rights. Solve Your Legal Problems
Stock trading platform Robinhood has been hit with a class action lawsuit after restricting purchases of focal stocks in an ongoing battle between retail investors and Wall Street hedge funds.
The lawsuit, filed in the Southern District of New York, alleges that Robinhood purposefully “deprived their customers of the ability to use their service” in an attempt to “manipulate the market for the benefit of people and financial institutions.”
Before markets opened on Thursday, Robinhood announced in a press release that it would restrict certain stocks that have experienced “recent volatility”, while also raising margin requirements for some securities. Equities affected had been boosted by the interest of online investment subreddit r/wallstreetbets, drawing an unprecedented wave of new investments to struggling retail stocks in an attempt to damage the hedge funds that were shorting them.
GameStop, AMC, American Airlines, Bed Bath & Beyond, BlackBerry and Nokia were among the stocks affected, subsequently experiencing precipitous drops in value. GameStop fell 44% following the imposition of restrictions, while AMC plunged 57%.
Several other trading platforms, including Charels Schwab, TD Ameritrade and Webull also moved to restrict the volatile shares, though Robinhood’s popularity among online investors has drawn the greatest attention.
Robinhood’s move has already drawn attention from lawmakers, who condemned what they saw as preferential treatment of established Wall Street firms over smaller investors.
[ymal]
Robinhood has yet to comment on the lawsuit.
This is not the first of the trading platform’s recent legal worries, having agreed to a $65 million fine in December for misleading customers about the price of trading stocks using its service. It has also been challenged on whether it does enough to educate beginner investors about the inherent risks of day trading.
The legal and financial expertise of these professionals can help businesses to grow and succeed. At times, they can even help business owners like you avoid hefty fines or severe legal consequences.
Accounting professionals ensure that your business finances and transactions are well-documented. They also perform financial analysis; tracking your earnings and expenses to develop a financial statement that shows profit or losses. Accounting services also ensure tax returns are promptly filed and paid. In addition, accountants can give suggestions on the best possible accounting tools to help your business grow.
Once you’ve arranged accounting, legal professionals should be your next priority. Businesses can benefit from the expertise of a lawyer in so many ways. A lawyer can:
Businesses should partner with a legal expert long before government regulations, employment issues, or contract disputes arise. A corporate lawyer or legal team that works with your company knows your business from day one, and they can give competent advice for all your legal concerns and issues.
[ymal]
Both legal and financial professionals and their services guarantee the health and well-being of your company. There are even instances when they intersect, such as:
Professional advice is necessary for a business to keep up with growing demands. You can count on lawyers for legal advice and representation while you seek accountants' assistance to manage business finances. There are several instances when their functions overlap, as in the case of business ownerships and software. Their technical advice may differ in approach, but in essence, they are one and the same – to safeguard the business' best interests. Their professional services ensure the legal and financial well-being of your company. Indeed, law and finance go hand-in-hand in running a profitable business venture.
US chipmaker Qualcomm has lost its data dispute with EU antitrust regulators following a ruling from Europe’s top court on Thursday.
The Luxembourg-based Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) reaffirmed regulators’ right to see data held by Qualcomm, a move that is likely to strengthen the European Commission’s position in other antitrust investigations.
The case in point has already seen the chipmaker struck with a €242 million fine.
Qualcomm’s legal fight with the EU antitrust watchdog began in 2017 when it was instructed to provide more information relating to a case in which it was accused of predatory pricing in 2009 and 2011 in an attempt to crush UK-based phone software developer Icera.
Qualcomm declined to provide further information, arguing that the regulator’s request exceeded the scope of the investigation. It brought its case to the General Court – the second-highest court in Europe – and lost its challenge in 2019, subsequently appealing to the CJEU.
On Thursday, the CJEU backed the Commission.
“Having regard to the broad powers of investigation conferred on the Commission by Regulation No 1/2003, it is for the Commission to decide whether a particular item of information is necessary to enable it to bring to light an infringement of the competition rules,” court judges said.
[ymal]
The European Commission has already levelled fines of €1.2 billion against Qualcomm relating to this case and another in the past three years, both related to the company’s alleged use of its market power to thwart rival firms.
Qualcomm Is also the subject of a third case from the Commissions, which is investigating whether the chipmaker engaged in anti-competitive behaviour by leveraging its market position in 5G modem chips in the radio frequency chip market.
Stellantis, formerly Fiat Chrysler Automobiles (FCA), said on Wednesday that it will plead guilty to charges of conspiring with company executives to make illegal gifts to leaders of United Auto Workers (UAW), the union that represents its factory workers.
The automaker will pay a fine of $30 million for one count of conspiring to violate the National Labour Relations act and accept three years of probation and oversight by an independent compliance monitor that will ensure it follows federal labour laws.
Timothy Waters, head of the FBI’s Michigan office, said FCA had conspired to make more than $3.5 million worth of lavish, illegal payments to then-UAW senior officials between 2009 and 2016. Bribes were given in the form of “money and other items of value” and were intended to “create an atmosphere more favourable for negotiating with the UAW.”
Federal prosecutors in Detroit described how Al Iacobelli, former head of labour relations at FCA and co-chairman of the UAW-Chrysler National Training Centre, signed off on a $262,000 payment to close a mortgage held by General Holiefield, fellow co-chairman of the centre and UAW vice president.
Iacobelli and others set up a liberal policy for credit card usage to placate union officials, the charges state. Training centre credit cards paid for more than $30,000 in meals for UAW officials at restaurants throughout Southern California, the government alleged.
[ymal]
Iacobelli was sentenced to 5 1/2 years in prison in 2018, and 12 UAW officials have also been convicted as part of the years-long investigation, including its two previous presidents, Gary Jones and Dennis Williams.
UAW also recently agreed to cooperate with a monitor appointed by the Justice Department to oversee union finances and operations.
Kris Satkunas, Director of Strategic Consulting at LexisNexis CounselLink, outlines how legal departments can adapt and remain resilient through another unusual year.
Last year, legal departments had to quickly shift strategies to respond to and address the challenges presented by COVID-19. While challenging, it also gave legal departments an opportunity to examine and implement new approaches to work, spend and vendor management.
Although we have started a new year, legal departments and operations must continue to adapt to changing environments. By continuing to review and update work processes and supporting technology, in-house lawyers and their teams can successfully execute planning for the upcoming year. This will help their clients not just survive into 2021, but thrive.
While the events of 2020 launched a shockwave across the world economy, the shutdowns from COVID-19 also forced businesses to take a fresh look at the way they have traditionally operated. As we move forward into 2021, legal departments can continue to make long-lasting, positive changes by assessing several areas of their operations.
A great place to start is to scrutinise and evaluate workflow processes for in the legal department, including those related to knowledge, matter and litigation management – and revamp processes where necessary.
Most legal departments have processes that have been in place for many years and are rife with opportunity for increased efficiency. Mining data out of the systems used for these processes can be extremely useful in identifying bottlenecks and other process breakdowns. A fresh set of eyes evaluating old processes can often identify low-hanging fruit that results in overall improvement.
Most legal departments have processes that have been in place for many years and are rife with opportunity for increased efficiency.
Optimised processes make good use of staff time and take into account the skill level that an individual needs in order to complete a step in a process. For example, increasing the role of professional staff such as paralegals may be one area where legal departments can better scale. Rather than automatically sending work to in-house lawyers, paralegals can often take on some of the work earlier in the process and serve as the first point of contact with outside counsel to handle the initial intake.
Legal departments should leverage the right technologies to refine and adjust workflow processes. Automation is one way in which processes and technology come together. Consider contract management. Contracts are often reviewed by multiple paralegals and lawyers, even though organisations frequently execute contracts that are extremely similar. Through automated workflows and the use of templates, legal departments can minimise the number of people who have to touch any given contract. As remote work continues, this approach makes even more sense.
In-house counsel may also find that they are using redundant systems or failing to fully leverage the systems they do have. For example, some departments may be using one platform for billing and another for matter management. Yet their billing system may already have robust matter management capabilities that can be easily integrated into the entire workflow process, eliminating the need for two separate systems.
Effectively tracking and managing outside counsel spend, including the examination of alternative fee arrangements (AFAs) and pricing rates, can improve legal departments’ positioning in 2021.
The negotiation of fees and hourly rates is always an important conversation with outside counsel, and that is particularly true when the economy is uncertain. But before in-house counsel have meaningful conversations about AFAs and rates, they need analytics and tools that allow them to benchmark firms against each other, both for their own legal work as well as for external benchmarks.
[ymal]
Most legal departments continue to feel increasing budgetary pressure. Making data informed decisions regarding outside counsel pricing is essential to meet the demands of the business on tightening budgets.
In 2021, legal departments should prioritise client relationship management techniques, both internally and externally. A more personal interaction like a phone call or Zoom meeting is often more effective than an email, which can be misinterpreted or require extensive or excessive follow up.
Within the organisation, regular meetings with business teams can help to minimise ongoing issues that frustrate business people and the legal team alike.
When dealing with outside counsel, identifying one point person can make challenging conversations easier. For some legal departments, designating a relationship lawyer is the best approach. For others, someone from the legal operations team may be in a better position to lead business conversations related to fees and matter budgets.
For in-house lawyers, 2020 brought unprecedented change for their teams, their clients and their law firms. One thing we can be certain of is that this year will continue to be unpredictable. By honing processes and technology, legal departments can stay ahead of the shifting environment and take advantage of the opportunities available from new approaches.
Volkswagen AG (VW) and a German auto supplier on Tuesday asked the US Supreme Court to review an appeals court decision allowing state and local governments to regulate modifications to emissions-control systems once a vehicle is sold.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals stated in August that it would not revisit a unanimous June decision that would allow two counties to seek financial penalties from VW for violation of laws prohibiting tampering with diesel emissions-control systems.
The penalties related to Volkswagen’s ‘Dieselgate’ scandal could total tens or even hundreds of billions of dollars.
"Volkswagen believes that the Clean Air Act preempts the unprecedented effort by these two counties to challenge auto manufacturers' nationwide, post-sale updates to their vehicles' emissions systems and that the Supreme Court should review this important question of federal law," a spokesperson for Volkswagen Group of America said in a statement.
On Tuesday, the Ohio Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the state’s suit against VS over damages caused by the altered emissions-control systems of 14,000 Ohio-registered vehicles. VW said that Ohio’s claims "could total $350 million per day, or more than $127 billion per year, over a multi-year period."
The appeals court found that, though Volkswagen had settled US criminal and civil actions related to the emissions scandal for more than $20 billion, it was not shielded from local and state government liability. The court said they were "mindful that our conclusion may result in staggering liability for Volkswagen."
[ymal]
The court added that this liability was "due to conduct that could not have been anticipated by Congress: Volkswagen’s intentional tampering with post-sale vehicles to increase air pollution."
Waterfront Solicitors Partner Jean-Marc Pettigrew discusses commercial contracts in the post COVID-19 world.
For many businesses, existing commercial contracts came under sharp focus with the outbreak of COVID-19 in March. With such a big shift in our day to day lives, some businesses who had previously been trading well suddenly faced a great drop in revenue and were quickly looking for ways to cut costs across the board, which meant taking a closer look at the long-term agreements they were locked into.
Having drafted, reviewed, and negotiated a range of general commercial and technology contracts since the outbreak of the pandemic, what is for certain is negotiating large scale commercial contracts looks vastly different now from how it did pre-pandemic.
I have pulled together some of the key areas which have come under particular security in the COVID world:
This is the most talked about clause in the last 12 months, but it is worth remembering that force majeure can only be relied on in a contract if it is expressly referred to. This is unlike other European jurisdictions where it is a recognised legal term.
When drafting a force majeure clause, make sure the clause is not limited to specific examples. While it’s common practice to list examples of force majeure events (e.g. a global pandemic!), it’s also recommended you include a general catch-all clause too (generally referred to as circumstances beyond a party’s reasonable control).
Some of our supplier clients have found that customers tried to rely on the force majeure clause as a means of excusing the payment of invoices. Economic downturns are not normally considered to be force majeure events, although we recommend specifically excluding payment obligations from force majeure events, to try and prevent any arguments being raised in the first place.
We often see force majeure events being allowed to continue for up to 60, even 90, days before a right to terminate becomes available. If you are a customer, we always recommend that the length of time be reduced as much as possible.
Some of our supplier clients have found that customers tried to rely on the force majeure clause as a means of excusing the payment of invoices.
New laws to curb the spread of COVID-19 have become commonplace, so it is important your contracts can deal with these changes. Most well drafted contracts should have some form of change control procedure so that parties can assess the impact of changes in law and how any potential increase in costs can be allocated.
It is a real possibility that certain changes in law may conflict with your ability to comply with your obligations under the contract. Contracts can deal with this through the use of compliance with law clauses, where performance is excused on the grounds that it would result in a breach of applicable law. In the absence of compliance with law clauses, an escalation clause can be useful for dealing with any potential disputes regarding failures to perform.
COVID-19 has certainly made suppliers and customers alike take more notice of business continuity and disaster recovery clauses. While previously not a clause that was cause for much discussion, it is now likely to be something that merits greater scrutiny. Parties should spend time reviewing and discussing BCDR plans and scenarios and how they will be implemented. Clauses assuring that they will be regularly tested, with results supplied to the customer, will also be important to ensure all is in working order.
Audit clauses vary greatly in scope, but almost all of them include a right to inspect the premises of the audited party, in particular premises from where the services are performed. With many places of work now empty following various lockdown measures, premises from which services are performed may be considered to extend to people’s homes. It is therefore worth making sure clauses are expressly limited to premises owned by or under the control of the audited party.
[ymal]
Continuing the working-from-home theme, many information security policies will often include restrictions on accessing data from home or impose requirements on user devices like laptops, tablets and mobile phones. Do you have oversight on what devices are being used by your employees when working from home?
It is likely that the COVID-19 crisis had a significant impact on many project timelines over the last few months, so it is important to have a contract that promotes a more flexible way of dealing with delivery issues.
Governance clauses requiring frequent meetings and supplier progress reports can help parties identify and discuss potential issues earlier. Instead of referring to specific dates, agreeing to delivery windows may help settle differences between supplier and customer.
Understandably, suppliers are also often resistant to liquidated damages clauses and termination for missing delivery dates. We find that early warning for late delivery clauses and escalation to senior management can help settle differences, particularly when they reflect what most suppliers and customers would expect with their projects in the first place.
A third class action lawsuit has been launched against Apple over the company’s practice of planned obsolescence in its iPhone product line.
The latest lawsuit, filed by Italian consumer association Altroconsumo on Monday, seeks compensation from Apple “of at least €60 on average for owners of iPhone 6, 6 Plus, 6S and 6S Plus” for the devices’ having been designed to become prematurely out-of-date, which the group describes as “environmentally irresponsible” and a “deliberate unfair practice towards consumers”.
The group said that it was targeting the iPhone 6 range specifically because it represents a “very concrete example” of consumer frustration caused by the practice of planned obsolescence.
Altroconsumo’s class action lawsuit is the third in similar cases brought against Apple by European nations. Similar lawsuits were filed in December by organisations OCU and Test-Achats in Spain and Belgium respectively, each under the umbrella of Euroconsumers, the advocacy group to which Altroconsumo also belongs.
Euroconsumers said in a press release that it plans to launch a fourth lawsuit in Portugal.
Apple has denied planning the obsolescence of its devices. “We have never---and would never---do anything to intentionally shorten the life of any Apple product, or degrade the user experience to drive customer upgrades,” an Apple spokesperson said in an email to The Verge.
“Our goal has always been to create products that our customers love, and making iPhones last as long as possible is an important part of that."
[ymal]
Last month, Apple agreed to pay $113 million to settle a lawsuit brought by 33 US states that alleged the company had deliberately throttled chip speeds in its iPhone 6, 7 and SE models through a software update.
Though Apple apologised for the slowdown and offered $29 battery replacements to affected users, it did not acknowledge any wrongdoing.
Commercial trucking accidents are always life-changing. These massive vehicles have a tremendous crash force that can leave both automobiles and human bodies mangled.
In 2014, popular actor and comedian Tracy Morgan was involved in a devastating collision that forever altered his life. While traveling on a New Jersey turnpike, his limousine was struck by a Walmart truck resulting in both severe injuries and one death. After a seemingly miraculous recovery, Morgan still has much to say about the lasting effects of this unfortunate event.
Friend and fellow comedian Jimmy McNair was traveling in the limousine bus with Morgan. Of the six people riding in the limousine, McNair was the only individual whose injuries proved fatal.
Although several years have passed, Morgan continues to publicly mourn McNair and honor his passing in social media posts. Although Tracy Morgan has seen remarkable improvements in his own general well-being, this is a loss that he'll never recover, and one that he still openly laments.
One of the most devastating developments resulting from this event was Morgan's traumatic brain injury (TBI). The crash occurred when the driver of a Walmart tractor trailer failed to respond to the slower speeds of surrounding vehicles and had to veer into Morgan's limo to avoid colliding with other motorists. Morgan's limousine bus was hit from the rear and went careening into other cars. The limousine eventually stopped moving after tipping over onto its side.
One of the most devastating developments resulting from this event was Morgan's traumatic brain injury (TBI).
After being diagnosed with TBI, Tracy Morgan experienced a long journey back to his former self. Some of the long-term effects of TBI include:
The comedian admits to suffering long bouts of depression throughout the early stages of his recovery, and he credits his family, friends, and professional team for being a constant source of support and encouragement. According to Morgan's lawyer, despite fighting to regain his pre-accident health, the comedian didn't show significant signs of improvement more than one full year after his crash.
For several months following his accident, Tracy Morgan remained wheelchair-bound. Over time and with lots of physical therapy, he was able to resume walking, albeit with a cane. During his crash, Morgan suffered several broken ribs, pulverised his femur, and broke every bone in his face. He spent several days in a coma, and was blind for a full week upon waking.
Today, Tracy Morgan is closer to the person he was before his accident, but continues to walk with great effort. Although his accident occurred in 2014, Morgan gave an interview in 2020 talking about his struggles to walk without a cane or any other assistive device. With upcoming nuptials, one of his goals has been learning how to walk independent of these tools so that he can have a normal trip down the aisle.
[ymal]
During this interview, the actor stated that small actions such as sitting down and standing up without assistance were things that he had to learn how to do again, and that they're movements he still struggles with. Thus, even though his recovery has been hailed as remarkable, his life is still fraught with physical challenges resulting from his accident.
The driver of the Walmart truck that crashed into Morgan's limousine bus was undoubtedly speeding just before the crash. When encountering a large pocket of slow-moving traffic, his efforts at evasive action forever altered Tracy Morgan's life.
Surprisingly, however, Walmart attorneys argued that Morgan's injuries were not the result of the driver's negligence, but rather of Morgan's failure to wear a proper safety restraint while riding in the limousine. In spite of this argument, Walmart eventually settled with the actor and all other passengers for an undisclosed amount. This accident just highlights how important it is to speak with a lawyer after getting injured.
Truck accidents are often devastating. The recovery from TBI can be an incredibly long and challenging one, and TBI sufferers are never guaranteed to regain their former levels of brain functioning. Moreover, many people never reclaim their former personalities, speaking abilities, and other functions. Although Tracy Morgan's recovery is certainly impressive, he still struggles with both TBI and the physical ravages of this event more than six years later.
Dominion Voting Systems has filed a $1.3 billion lawsuit against former President Donald Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani, accusing him of pushing a damaging conspiracy theory against the company.
The 107-page complaint, which was filed in federal court on Monday, accuses Giuliani of having “manufactured and disseminated the ‘Big Lie’” that its machines changed votes from Trump to Biden during the 2020 US presidential election.
Giuliani’s claim “foreseeably went viral and deceived millions of people into believing that Dominion had stolen their votes and fixed the election,” Dominion alleged, stating that it had filed the lawsuit to correct the record and “stand up for itself, its employees, and the electoral process.”
Dominion’s complaint states that it spent $565,000 on private security to protect its employees as they faced harassment and death threats. The company says hundreds of its contracts in various states and localities have been placed in jeopardy by Giuliani’s campaign, and that it projects a loss of profits of $200 million in the next five years.
Dominion had previously sued lawyer Sidney Powell, whom the company also accused of deliberately disseminating conspiracy theories about the legality of the US election and Dominion’s role in it.
Last week, a group of prominent attorneys asked New York’s judiciary to suspend Giuliani’s license for making false claims in post-election lawsuits and for urging an audience of Trump supporters on 6 January to “fight like hell” and to engage in “trial by combat” shortly before they attacked the US capitol.
[ymal]
Giuliani has stood by his claims about the election since its conclusion, saying during an appearance on a radio show last week that he has been attacked for “exercising my right of free speech and defending my client.”
