The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has set a briefing schedule for its consideration of the dismissal of antitrust claims against more than a dozen global banks that allegedly conspired to fix the benchmark London Interbank Offered Rate. The opening brief from a class of bond purchasers whose appeal was reinstated last week by the U.S. Supreme Court is due on March 9. The banks’ response is supposed to be filed a month later.
If you ask the state of Connecticut, Lorraine Martin was never arrested in August 2010 on narcotics charges. Yes, the arrest took place – Martin was charged along with her two adult sons after police searched her home in Greenwich and found marijuana, scales and plastic bags – but in January 2012 the state dropped its case and scrubbed Martin’s record. Under Connecticut’s erasure statute, which is similar to those in other states, Martin is permitted to swear under oath that she has never been arrested.
On Friday evening, the Justice Department filed its brief asking the entire 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to review U.S. v. Newman, the biggest insider trading appellate decision in recent memory. It’s a long shot, considering how infrequently the 2nd Circuit agrees to hear cases en banc. But even in the unlikely event that the government ultimately prevails in the appeal, the Justice Department will still have lost ground in insider trading prosecution because the new brief abandons a position the government defended in earlier stages of the case.
It is a tragedy to be diagnosed with mesothelioma, a lung and chest cancer closely associated with exposure to asbestos. Mesothelioma is a particularly lethal disease, typically undetected until tumors have spread to vital organs. Most of the 3,000 or so people a year who are diagnosed with mesothelioma don’t even receive treatment other than palliative care for the fearsome symptoms of their cancer.
Last fall, directors of the life insurance settlement company Imperial Holdings adopted an apparently unique tactic to rein in suits by shareholders. As I reported at the time, the board amended Imperial’s bylaws to require shareholders to deliver written consent from the owners of at least 3 percent of the company’s outstanding shares in order to bring a class action or derivative suit.
Stuart Grant of Grant & Eisenhofer has broken out the exclamation points – three of them in a row – in a new motion asserting that Wal-Mart should be fined more than $1 million for failing to turn over documents related to its internal investigation of bribes allegedly paid by its Mexican operation. According to the filing, Wal-Mart’s lawyers at Gibson Dunn & Crutcher and Potter Anderson & Corroon signed misleading certifications in October, attesting that they had decided what documents Wal-Mart would produce in order to comply with an order from Delaware Chancery Court.
On Thursday, the mining and metals company Freeport-McMoRan filed the long-awaited settlement of shareholder claims in Delaware Chancery Court that it overpaid for two affiliates whose 2013 acquisition was tainted by directors’ conflict of interest. Freeport agreed to pay $137.5 million, $115 million of which will come from its insurers. That’s the third-biggest-ever cash payout in a derivative settlement, behind the record-setting $275 million Activision Blizzard deal last November and the $139 million News Corp settlement in 2013.
I felt downright nostalgic when I saw that Apple and Ericsson have sued each other over licensing fees for Ericsson’s standard-essential patents for wireless technology. It feels so long since the days when smart device patent filings were a daily occurrence!
If you are an employee who has signed a contract requiring you to arbitrate claims against your employer, you’re pretty much stuck with it. After the U.S. Supreme Court’s rulings in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion in 2011 and American Express v. Italian Colors in 2012, employees (and consumers, for that matter) have little to no hope of litigating their cases in court – rather than before arbitration panels – when they’ve agreed to arbitration clauses. But should employees’ arbitration agreements with their employers also force them to arbitrate against co-defendants that haven’t signed the agreements?
I am sure that Legal Services of Eastern Missouri, which provides free help to low-income and elderly folks in and around St. Louis, could have done a lot of good with the $2.3 or so million it was designated to receive from the settlement fund in a long-running securities class action over the 1998 merger that created Bank of America. But if you believe in the long-term future of class actions, you should welcome an 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision last week that said that Legal Services isn’t entitled to the money.