Search

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has submitted a response brief to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals defending the climate disclosure rules it adopted in March 2024. The rules require standardized climate disclosures by SEC registrants and aim to provide more detailed and comparable information for informed investment and voting decisions. The SEC argues that it has the statutory authority to adopt these rules, and it has considered the cost, impact, and alternatives of the rules. The SEC also asserts that the rules are consistent with the First Amendment and that the relief requested by the petitioners is overbroad. The petitioners are due to submit their reply briefs by September 3, 2024. The SEC voluntarily stayed the rules on April 4, 2024, but it intends to vigorously defend their validity in court. It is possible that the SEC will appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court if the rules are vacated by the Eighth Circuit. Despite the legal challenges, many U.S. businesses have already taken proactive steps to prepare for sustainable developments. [Extracted from the article]

This article explores the challenges faced by defendants in anti-SLAPP lawsuits, which aim to protect free speech. The laws vary across states, and federal courts have been inconsistent in their application of these laws. This inconsistency creates uncertainty for defendants and may discourage individuals from exercising their constitutional rights. The article suggests that a federal anti-SLAPP law could provide more consistent and effective protection in federal court. [Extracted from the article]

A recent Pennsylvania federal court denied ATS Tree Services' motion for a preliminary injunction against the U.S. Federal Trade Commission's noncompete ban, conflicting with a Texas federal court's conclusion that the FTC lacks the authority to create substantive rules. The Texas court is expected to rule on the merits of its case just days before the ban's effective date. Employers should prepare for the possibility of the ban becoming effective and assess existing agreements imposing post-employment restrictions. The FTC's noncompete ban applies to written or oral employment provisions that penalize or prevent workers from seeking new employment or operating a business in the U.S., with the exception of senior executives. [Extracted from the article]

A Texas district court has blocked the implementation of the Federal Trade Commission's (FTC) proposed noncompete rule, which was set to go into effect on September 4, 2024. The rule would have banned the enforcement of noncompete clauses in employment agreements for most employees nationwide and required employers to notify employees that their noncompete agreements were no longer enforceable. The court's decision was based on the belief that the rule exceeded the FTC's administrative authority. The FTC is considering an appeal, but until then, employers can continue to enforce noncompete agreements as long as they comply with state laws. [Extracted from the article]

A Texas court has issued a national injunction preventing the enforcement of the Federal Trade Commission's (FTC) rule banning employee noncompete agreements. The rule, which was set to take effect on September 4, would have applied to any employment term or policy that restricted workers from seeking new employment or operating a business after leaving their current job. The court found that the FTC did not have the authority to issue the noncompete rule and that it was arbitrary and capricious. While the FTC may appeal the decision, businesses now have clarity on the rule and are not required to comply by September 4. It is important to note that this decision does not affect state laws governing noncompete agreements. [Extracted from the article]

The article cites several U.S. court rulings that shaped the Endangered Species Act. The cases discussed include Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill wherein conservationists opposed the construction of the Tellico Dam, Palila v. Hawaii Department of Land & Natural Resources wherein environmental groups argued on the destruction of woodland slopes by game animals, and Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife wherein the group pursued its right to sue to enforce federal environmental statutes.

The Delaware Supreme Court recently reversed a decision by the Delaware Court of Chancery, upholding a "forfeiture-for-competition" provision in a limited partnership agreement. The provision allows a partnership to withhold certain payments from a partner who engages in competitive activities outlined in the agreement. The case involved Cantor Fitzgerald, L.P. and former partners who voluntarily withdrew from the partnership. The Delaware Supreme Court found that the provision was valid under Delaware's strong public policy favoring freedom of contract in the alternative entity setting. This decision provides reassurance that such provisions in alternative entity agreements will generally be enforced as written. However, the court did not address the enforceability of noncompete terms specifically, leaving questions about their standards and related issues for future cases. [Extracted from the article]

The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to review the constitutionality of the 2020 Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act (HISA), which created the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority (HISA) to regulate medication control and racetrack safety in thoroughbred horseracing. The Act has faced challenges in the Sixth Circuit, with parties filing a petition for a writ of certiorari. Although the Supreme Court initially denied certiorari, a petition for rehearing has been filed based on a ruling by the Fifth Circuit that found the Act to be unconstitutional due to its delegation of enforcement power to private actors. The Supreme Court is currently considering the petition for rehearing. [Extracted from the article]

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has vacated the private fund adviser rules adopted by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in August 2023. The court ruled that the SEC exceeded its authority in adopting these rules, as they were unauthorized and had untenable legal bases. The rules, which were set to have a compliance date in September 2024, included restrictions on activities, quarterly statements, preferential treatment, private fund audits, adviser-led secondaries, and recordkeeping. It is uncertain whether the SEC will appeal the ruling, but for now, private fund advisers are unlikely to need to follow these rules. However, the SEC may still raise similar requirements in future examinations, and investors may seek certain terms that would have been granted under the disputed rules. [Extracted from the article]

The U.S. Supreme Court recently clarified the application of the Transportation Exemption from the arbitration of claims set forth in Section 1 of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). In the case of Bissonnette v. LePage Bakeries, the Court overturned a Second Circuit decision that required workers to be employed in the transportation industry to avail themselves of the exemption. The Court reaffirmed that the exemption depends on the nature of a worker's duties, not the nature of the employer's business. The Court found that the focus should be on the workers' role in the free flow of goods across borders, rather than the industry of the employer. This ruling leaves open challenges to the test and standard for determining which employees qualify as transportation workers under the exemption. [Extracted from the article]

The Supreme Court recently ruled unanimously that when a district court compels claims to arbitration, it is required to stay the case rather than dismiss it outright. This decision is important for parties seeking to compel arbitration, as they often seek dismissal of the case. The case in question, Smith v. Spizzirri, involved claims of violations of employment laws. The district court initially dismissed the case, but the Supreme Court reversed this decision, stating that the text, structure, and purpose of the Federal Arbitration Act all point to the conclusion that a court does not have the discretion to dismiss a suit when arbitration is requested. [Extracted from the article]

The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently addressed the issue of "mootness fees" in a merger objection lawsuit. The case involved Akorn, Inc., which faced a lawsuit from six shareholders claiming insufficient disclosure in a proxy statement related to a $4 billion merger with Fresenius Kabi AG. Akorn paid $322,500 in plaintiffs' attorney fees to resolve the lawsuit and proceed with the merger. One shareholder requested that the court require the attorneys to return the fees, arguing that they had not achieved any benefit for the investors. The appellate court discussed the history and merits of mootness fees cases, noting that such litigation has not ended despite previous criticism. The court also highlighted the impact of certain Delaware Court of Chancery decisions on reducing the number of lawsuits filed against large deals. However, it expressed concern that these lawsuits have shifted from Delaware to federal courts. The case was remanded for further consideration, and the original plaintiffs' appeals were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. [Extracted from the article]

The article discusses the ongoing confusion and litigation surrounding the definition of "waters of the United States" (WOTUS) under the Clean Water Act (CWA). The Supreme Court's 2006 decision in Rapanos v. United States added to the confusion, with different circuits applying different standards. Both the Obama and Trump administrations attempted to provide clarity through rulemaking, but their rules were repealed. The recent Sackett v. EPA decision rejected the significant nexus standard and endorsed the Rapanos plurality's standard, but questions remain about the interpretation of certain terms. The article concludes that the WOTUS issue is still unresolved and hopes for a more consistent and clear resolution in the future. [Extracted from the article]

In the article "Fourth Circuit's Ruling in Sony Music v. Cox Communications and ISP Liability," the Fourth Circuit held that Cox Communications Inc., an internet service provider (ISP), was contributorily liable but not vicariously liable for copyright infringement by its users. The court found that Cox did not qualify for the Digital Millennium Copyright Act's Safe Harbor Provision because its termination policy for repeat infringers was inadequate. Additionally, the court determined that Cox did not directly profit from the infringement and did not have the right and ability to supervise its users, thus not making them vicariously liable. However, Cox was still found to be contributorily liable because they had knowledge of the infringing activity and materially contributed to it by continuing to provide service to repeat infringers. [Extracted from the article]

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled in the case of Patterson v. Howe that the plaintiff lacked standing to pursue claims under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). The plaintiff had failed to timely respond to requests for admission in a state court collections case, which were deemed admitted. The plaintiff then filed a separate federal lawsuit against the creditor's attorney, alleging unfair debt collection practices. However, the court found that the plaintiff did not suffer concrete harm and lacked standing. The decision is consistent with previous rulings in the Seventh Circuit and the Supreme Court. [Extracted from the article]

The article discusses the forum shopping practice of litigants and the handling of high-profile federal court cases by Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. It explored the rulings issued by Kacsmaryk on previous cases which involve birth control access and asylum-seekers from Mexico, the concerns raised about the distribution of case assignments by federal courts, and the response of Northern District of Texas judges to forum shopping rules.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) has filed an appeal with the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals to reinstate an anti-discrimination instruction in its examination manual. The appeal comes after a decision by the District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, which struck down the manual update. The CFPB argues that the plaintiffs have failed to establish standing, that the venue is improper, and that the Consumer Financial Protection Act allows the CFPB to treat discrimination as unfair. The appeal also challenges the District Court's application of the major questions doctrine. [Extracted from the article]

A group of fifteen student loan securitization trusts has petitioned the Supreme Court to hear their appeal regarding the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's (CFPB) jurisdiction over entities used as securitization vehicles for consumer financial products, specifically student loans. The Third Circuit had previously affirmed the CFPB's jurisdiction, stating that the trusts are "covered persons" under the Consumer Financial Protection Act (CFPA) due to their involvement in offering and providing consumer financial products. The trusts argue that they are passive vehicles and not engaged in student loan servicing, and that the loan servicing is performed by an independent entity. They also claim that the Bureau's enforcement action should be dismissed because it was initiated prior to the Supreme Court's decision on the constitutionality of the CFPB director's removal. [Extracted from the article]

The Supreme Court is set to consider whether to overrule the Chevron doctrine in two cases, Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce. Chevron holds that courts must defer to federal agency interpretations of statutes if they are not inconsistent with the statute's clear terms and are reasonable. The cases involve a dispute over whether the National Marine Fisheries Service can require commercial fishing vessel owners to pay for monitors to gather data for conservation purposes. The decision to overrule Chevron could have significant implications for American law and government, potentially undermining previous court decisions and casting doubt on Congress's ability to delegate statutory interpretation to expert agencies. The Court may also consider alternative approaches to Chevron, such as a sliding-scale approach to deference or a rigorous applicability test. The major questions doctrine and the doctrine of stare decisis are also relevant to the debate. [Extracted from the article]

The article discusses the "National Public Defense Workload Study," which called for a significant reduction in workloads for those who do criminal justice work in the public sector. Topics include provision under the Rule 1.1, Rule 1.3, and Rule 1.7 of the American Bar Association (ABA) Model Rules of Professional Conduct, an overview of the studies examined by the researchers, and a court decision which determined trial counsel provides ineffective assistance.

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has reversed a decision to transfer a case challenging the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's (CFPB) late fee rule from Fort Worth, Texas, to the District Court for the District of Columbia. This is the second time the Fifth Circuit has reversed the transfer, citing a "byzantine procedural history." The Circuit Court found that the District Court misapplied the standard for deciding venue transfer questions and ordered the District Court to vacate its transfer order. The case may continue to have unexpected twists and turns, but the District Court previously called the remaining statutory claims "compelling." [Extracted from the article]

The U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled in the case of Macquarie Infrastructure Corp. v. Moab Partners that a failure to disclose information required by SEC Regulation S-K's Item 303 cannot support a private action under Rule 10b-5(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, unless the omission renders any "statements made" misleading. The Court clarified that Rule 10b-5(b) does not prohibit pure omissions, but only addresses half-truths. This ruling affirms that pure omissions are not actionable under Rule 10b-5(b). [Extracted from the article]

Industry groups have requested that a Texas District Court maintain an injunction on the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's (CFPB) late fee rule. The plaintiffs argue that the CFPB has not shown any significant changes since the injunction was issued and that the justifications for the injunction still exist. They also propose a 90-day compliance period if the court decides to grant the CFPB's motion to dissolve the injunction. [Extracted from the article]

The Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) prohibits the collection of a person's biometric identifiers without their written consent. Financial institutions are exempt from BIPA, but their service providers are not. BIPA allows plaintiffs to recover statutory damages for each violation, which can result in significant liability. In response to large settlements and judgments, the Illinois Supreme Court has suggested that the legislature revise the statute's language. Senate Bill 2979 has been passed by the Illinois Senate to clarify that there can only be one recovery of statutory damages for the same information obtained from the same person multiple times. The bill now awaits further consideration and possible revisions in the Illinois House of Representatives. [Extracted from the article]

The Delaware Court of Chancery recently made a departure from its traditional practices by awarding compound prejudgment interest to the plaintiff in the case of Brown v. Court Square Capital Management, L.P. The plaintiff, Kevin Brown, sued his former employer after they stopped paying him his share of carried interest. The court ruled in Brown's favor and ordered the defendant to repay him all owed carried interest, ongoing carried interest, prejudgment interest, post-judgment interest, and interest on a per diem basis for each wrongfully withheld interest payment. The court justified the use of compound interest based on market realities, the sophisticated nature of the parties involved, and the compensatory and restitutionary aims of prejudgment interest. [Extracted from the article]

A personal narrative is presented which explores the author's experiences of filing a federal lawsuit on behalf of their client who was repeatedly sexually assaulted by her correctional counselor and winning a federal jury judgment.

The Delaware Court of Chancery recently ruled in the case of West Palm Beach Firefighters' Pension Fund v. Moelis & Company that a plaintiff's claim challenging the validity of certain provisions in a stockholder agreement was ripe for adjudication and not barred by the defense of laches. The plaintiff argued that the provisions violated Delaware law by granting excessive rights to the CEO. The court rejected the defendant's defense of laches, stating that it cannot validate a void act, and found that there was no unreasonable delay or prejudice. The court also rejected the defense of ripeness, stating that the plaintiff could bring a facial challenge now and pursue an equitable challenge in the future. This ruling affirms that claims contesting the validity of provisions in corporate documents contrary to statutory law are justiciable and cannot be barred by laches or ripeness defenses. [Extracted from the article]

In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court clarified that district courts are required to stay, rather than dismiss, proceedings when a stay is requested and all matters are subject to arbitration. The Court emphasized that the term "shall" in the Federal Arbitration Act creates an obligation for district courts to stay proceedings, and that a stay is a temporary suspension, not a termination, of legal proceedings. As a result, a party seeking to contest arbitration will be unable to immediately appeal a court's decision, as a stay following an order compelling arbitration is not considered a final decision. [Extracted from the article]

This article discusses the case of Corner Post, Inc. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, which involves a challenge to a Federal Reserve rule that caps debit-card processing fees for large banks. The case centers around the question of when Administrative Procedure Act (APA) claims accrue, either upon rule promulgation or upon injury to the rule challenger. The U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit ruled that the claim accrued when the rule was published, leading to the dismissal of the lawsuit. However, Corner Post is asking the Supreme Court to adopt the position of the Sixth Circuit, which holds that the limitation period begins when a plaintiff is first "adversely affected" by an agency regulation. The case is scheduled for oral argument on February 20, 2024. [Extracted from the article]

The article discusses a court case in which the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the birthright citizenship of Wong Kim Ark, who was born in San Francisco, California in 1870. In the case U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, the Chinese Consolidated Benevolent Association lawyers filed a petition of habeas corpus after Wong was refused entry to the U.S. in 1895. The court ruled based on the 14th amendment of the constitution.

The US District Court for the Southern District of Florida has denied Freedom Mortgage Corporation's motion to stay the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's (CFPB) enforcement action against it. The motion was filed pending a decision by the Supreme Court in a related case regarding the funding structure of the CFPB. The court determined that Freedom Mortgage had not demonstrated sufficient hardship or inequity if the case were to proceed, and emphasized the importance of vigorous enforcement of consumer protection laws. A decision in the Supreme Court case is expected in the first half of 2024. [Extracted from the article]