Securities litigation has a culture defined by multiple
elements: the types of cases filed, the plaintiffs’ lawyers who file them, the
defense counsel who defend them, the characteristics of the insurance that
covers them, the way insurance representatives approach coverage, the
government’s investigative policies – and, of course, the attitude of public
companies and their directors and officers toward disclosure and governance.
This culture has been largely stable over the nearly 20 years
I’ve defended securities litigation matters full time. The array of
private securities litigation matters (in the way I define securities
litigation) remains the same – in order of virulence: securities class actions,
shareholder derivative litigation matters (derivative actions, board demands,
and books-and-records inspections), and shareholder challenges to
mergers. The world of disclosure-related SEC enforcement and internal
corporate investigations is basically unchanged as well. And the art of
managing a disclosure crisis, involving the convergence of shareholder
litigation, SEC enforcement, and an internal investigation, involves the same
basic skills and instincts.
But I’ve noted significant changes to other characteristics of
securities-litigation culture recently, which portend a paradigm shift.
Over the past few years, smaller plaintiffs’ firms have initiated more
securities class actions on behalf of individual, retail investors, largely
against smaller companies that have suffered what I call “lawsuit blueprint”
problems such as auditor resignations and short-seller reports. This
trend – which has now become ingrained into the securities-litigation culture –
will significantly influence the way securities cases are defended and by whom,
and change the way that D&O insurance coverage and claims need to be
handled.
SAN FRANCISCO: Uber Technologies Inc is
jostling with drivers suing for reimbursement of their expenses in advance of
an important hearing next week in the fight over whether drivers are
independent contractors or employees entitled to benefits.
Three drivers sued Uber in a federal court in
San Francisco, contending they are employees and entitled to reimbursement for
expenses, including gas and vehicle maintenance. The drivers currently pay
those costs themselves.
If allowed to proceed as a class action, the
2013 lawsuit could cover more than 160,000 California drivers and give
plaintiffs leverage to negotiate a settlement.
Now, both sides are trying to demonstrate to
U.S. District Judge Edward Chen that they command the support of drivers in the
run-up to a hearing on class certification next week. In court filings, Uber
cited written statements from more than 400 drivers supporting the company, with
some arguing they prefer the flexibility of Uber's current model.
The country’s second largest pharmacy chain is the
latest party in a class-action lawsuit that accuses CVS of deliberately
overcharging hundreds of thousands of patients for generic prescription drugs.
Bloomberg reports that the pharmacy
customers claim in the class-action seeking lawsuit that CVS intentionally
overcharged them for prescription drugs by submitting claims for payment to
third parties at inflated prices.
According to the lawsuit, since 2008 CVS has
engaged in “massive fraud” that led to “substantial ill-gotten gains” by
charging three or four times the typical price for generic drugs.
At issue in the lawsuit is CVS’s Health Savings
Pass, a discount program for patients paying cash for prescriptions. The plan
costs $15 per year to join and offers 90-day supplies of some generic drugs for
$11.99.
The complaint contends that patients who purchased
prescriptions through third-party plans paid higher prices than those who paid
through CVS’s program.
Federal courts historically have been quick to dismiss plaintiff
claims of on-going harm when their data is snatched in a breach, but a crack is
appearing in that logic that could change how liability is gauged for hacked
corporations and fuel class-action lawsuits against those companies.
Last week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
began to question the depth of on-going harm to victims by overturning a
district court that had tossed a class-action lawsuit against Neiman Marcus
over a 2014 data breach. The Court said victims had "standing," a
right to file a lawsuit in federal court, over concerns of on-going problems.
"The court likened the case to a recent data breach
involving Adobe, wherein the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California declared that 'the risk that Plaintiffs' personal data will be
misused by the hackers who breached Adobe's network is immediate and very
real,' " lawyers from Ballard Spahr, a national law firm based in
Philadelphia, wrote in a review of the ruling.
NHL commissioner Gary Bettman is giving a legal
deposition Friday as part of the class-action lawsuit against the
league regarding concussions, ESPN.com reported.
Bettman's
testimony was scheduled to begin at 10 a.m. ET in U.S. District Court in
New York before Judge Susan Richard Nelson, who ruled in May that Bettman
possessed “unique or special knowledge relevant” to the players' lawsuit.
Nelson's ruling allowed the plaintiffs'
attorneys the opportunity to first depose other witnesses, including deputy
commissioner BIll Daly and director of hockey operations Colin Campbell, as
well as one team trainer and a team doctor.
Lately, it seems like we can't go a week without hearing of a
sneaker brand caught up in legal drama. The latest case revolves around adidas
and the brand's Springblade running technology.
According to the Daily News, a man from
Westchester County, N.Y. says that the adidas Springblade sneakers were
released with an obvious defect that cause the shoe to literally split apart at
the seams.
Now, he's
launched a class action lawsuit against the brand. The plaintiff alleges that
he bought multiple pairs of Springblades with the intention of using them on a
treadmill, only to have every last pair fall apart.
No comments:
Post a Comment