The fintech revolution continues to reshape financial services, introducing new ways for individuals and businesses to interact with their finances. By harnessing advancements in blockchain, artificial intelligence (AI), and digital assets, fintech is paving the way for more efficient, transparent, and personalized financial solutions. This wave of technological transformation promises to disrupt traditional financial models and create a more accessible, customer-centric industry.
Blockchain technology has moved beyond cryptocurrency, establishing itself as a key innovation within financial services. By offering a secure, decentralized method for recording transactions, blockchain is revolutionizing how financial institutions handle data. Its applications extend from speeding up cross-border payments to facilitating transparent, tamper-proof recordkeeping, significantly reducing fraud and operational costs.
Furthermore, blockchain is streamlining processes within asset management and lending. Through smart contracts—self-executing contracts with terms written directly into code—transactions can be automated and verified without intermediaries, ensuring faster processing times and enhanced trust between parties.
AI has also become a game-changer, particularly in enhancing customer experience and risk management. AI-driven platforms are capable of analyzing vast amounts of customer data in real-time, allowing banks and financial institutions to offer personalized advice, improve credit scoring accuracy, and detect fraud patterns more effectively.
AI-driven chatbots and virtual assistants are becoming increasingly common, enabling round-the-clock customer service and guiding users through complex financial decisions. Additionally, predictive analytics powered by AI enables institutions to better assess market trends, helping clients make informed investment decisions based on their specific financial goals.
Digital assets like cryptocurrencies continue to grow in popularity, appealing to consumers seeking portfolio diversification. Despite the fluctuations in the crypto market, the adoption rate of digital assets is steadily increasing, as more users view them as a viable investment option. This sustained growth reflects a shift in how people perceive value, with younger generations increasingly attracted to decentralized digital currencies over traditional investment avenues.
With more institutional players supporting crypto transactions and integrating blockchain, digital assets are no longer limited to niche markets. Financial firms worldwide are building infrastructure to support crypto services, ensuring they remain competitive as client demand for digital asset options grows.
The rise of digital payments has simplified transactions, making it easier than ever for consumers and businesses to conduct transactions quickly and securely. Mobile wallets, peer-to-peer payment platforms, and contactless payments have surged, particularly during the pandemic, driving the transition to a cashless society.
Digital payment options provide a streamlined, user-friendly alternative to cash transactions, reducing transaction times and lowering the costs associated with payment processing. These technologies also promote financial inclusion, as they provide access to banking services for individuals in underbanked regions.
Open banking has opened new opportunities for collaboration between traditional financial institutions and fintech firms. By enabling third-party developers to access bank data (with customer consent), open banking facilitates the creation of innovative financial products and services tailored to individual needs. This system empowers customers with greater control over their financial data and fosters a competitive environment where traditional banks and fintechs work together to offer better services.
For instance, through open banking, consumers can easily integrate all their accounts into one app, providing a comprehensive view of their finances, improving budgeting, and streamlining payments across platforms. Open banking also enhances transparency, as consumers can shop for services from various providers based on their unique needs.
Fintech advancements in blockchain, AI, digital assets, and open banking are redefining the future of finance, pushing boundaries in speed, security, and customer-centricity. As fintech continues to evolve, traditional financial institutions will need to adapt to meet new consumer expectations. The future of finance promises a collaborative, inclusive, and highly personalized experience, where cutting-edge technologies drive an efficient, resilient financial landscape.
Amazon, the global e-commerce giant, is facing a significant legal challenge in the UK as a new class action lawsuit seeks damages exceeding £2.7 billion. The suit, filed before the UK’s Competition Appeals Tribunal (CAT), alleges that Amazon has engaged in anticompetitive practices that harm consumers by distorting market conditions, thus driving up prices for millions of UK customers. Andreas Stephan, a professor of competition law and head of the Law School at the University of East Anglia, has initiated the suit, representing millions of UK consumers who have allegedly paid higher prices as a result of Amazon’s practices. The case stands to be one of the most prominent challenges Amazon has faced in the UK and underscores the intensifying scrutiny of tech giants’ influence on markets around the world.
The class action lawsuit alleges that Amazon has used its dominant position in the UK’s online retail market to prioritize its own products and the products of sellers who use Amazon’s logistics and fulfillment services, over others who do not pay for such services. According to Stephan, Amazon’s policies make it difficult for independent sellers to compete fairly on the platform, leading to reduced choice for consumers and inflated prices.
Stephan claims that Amazon's algorithmic practices and policies favor the placement of its own products and certain third-party products in prominent positions, particularly in the coveted “Buy Box” on product listings. This strategic placement is crucial, as studies show that a large majority of Amazon sales go through the Buy Box. By allegedly influencing which sellers can access the Buy Box, Amazon is effectively deciding which products consumers are more likely to purchase, raising concerns that this behavior restricts competition and choice.
The lawsuit, on behalf of millions of Amazon’s UK customers, argues that Amazon’s practices violate UK competition laws by artificially limiting consumer choice and forcing customers to pay higher prices. The main allegations can be summarized as follows:
The case will be heard before the UK’s Competition Appeals Tribunal (CAT), a specialized judicial body that addresses complex competition and regulatory issues. The CAT has recently been at the center of landmark antitrust cases, particularly as public and regulatory scrutiny of tech giants’ market practices intensifies across Europe.
The tribunal has the authority to certify the class action, which would allow it to proceed on behalf of the millions of consumers allegedly affected. If certified, the lawsuit could have significant implications for Amazon’s business practices in the UK, potentially forcing changes to its algorithms, sales strategies, and policies on product placement. In addition to damages, the suit seeks regulatory intervention to address the alleged unfair competitive practices and increase transparency in Amazon’s algorithmic processes.
Amazon has consistently defended its business practices, asserting that it operates fairly within the bounds of competition law. The company has emphasized that the Buy Box is designed to feature products based on factors like price, availability, delivery speed, and seller performance, claiming that these factors benefit consumers by promoting high-quality, competitively priced products. Amazon has also argued that its fulfillment services provide significant advantages to both sellers and consumers, including faster delivery and increased reliability, which it says enhance the overall shopping experience.
In a statement regarding similar cases brought against Amazon in other countries, the company has expressed its commitment to cooperating with regulators while upholding a competitive, consumer-focused platform. However, it has not yet commented specifically on this latest lawsuit.
If successful, the lawsuit could result in significant changes to Amazon’s operational model in the UK, with potential ripple effects on its business practices globally. Here are a few potential impacts:
Amazon’s legal challenges in the UK reflect a broader global trend of increasing antitrust scrutiny against tech giants. Regulatory bodies in the European Union, the United States, and other regions have been actively investigating Amazon, Google, Facebook, and Apple over alleged market abuses and anti-competitive practices. In the European Union, Amazon faces similar accusations, with regulators examining whether the company has used data from independent sellers to gain an unfair competitive advantage.
This lawsuit in the UK adds to Amazon’s growing list of regulatory challenges, underscoring the global momentum toward greater oversight of large tech companies. Governments and regulators are increasingly recognizing the need for policy adjustments to address the unique challenges presented by the dominance of major tech platforms in various markets.
The class action lawsuit against Amazon in the UK, spearheaded by Andreas Stephan, is a significant development in the ongoing battle between tech giants and regulators over fair competition and consumer rights. If successful, the suit could not only lead to substantial financial consequences for Amazon but may also necessitate changes in its business practices, particularly in how it manages the visibility and prioritization of products on its platform. As tech giants face mounting legal challenges worldwide, this case reflects a pivotal moment in the regulation of digital marketplaces and the push for greater accountability in the tech industry.
The outcome of this case could shape the future landscape of e-commerce, setting important precedents for the responsibilities of online platforms to their consumers and the competitive dynamics that govern digital marketplaces.
News Corp's Dow Jones and New York Post have filed a lawsuit against AI start-up Perplexity, accusing the company of "massive illegal copying" of copyrighted content.
The legal action, filed on Monday, alleges that Perplexity has been using copyrighted content from News Corp publications, including The Wall Street Journal and the New York Post, to train its AI models and generate search results. This practice, according to the lawsuit, infringes on the companies' intellectual property rights and undermines their business models.
Perplexity, an AI-powered search engine, provides users with concise and informative answers to their queries, often citing sources to support its responses. However, the lawsuit alleges that the company has been using copyrighted content without proper authorization to train its AI models.
This legal battle highlights the growing tension between traditional media companies and AI startups. As AI technology advances, concerns about copyright infringement and fair use are becoming increasingly prominent. The outcome of this case could have significant implications for the future of AI and the media industry.
Perplexity has responded to the lawsuit, denying the allegations and asserting that it respects copyright laws. The company maintains that it uses a combination of techniques to generate responses, including accessing and processing publicly available information.
The legal dispute between News Corp and Perplexity is likely to be closely watched by industry observers. It raises important questions about the boundaries of fair use, the value of copyrighted content in the age of AI, and the potential liability of AI companies that use copyrighted material without proper authorization.
The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear a pair of cases that could shape how legal challenges to the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) clean air policies are handled. The justices will consider whether certain lawsuits targeting the EPA’s actions aimed at reducing air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions should be heard by regional appeals courts or the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which traditionally handles regulatory disputes.
At the center of this legal debate are two cases: one brought by Republican-led states, including Oklahoma and Utah, and another involving small oil refineries. Both cases question the venue for challenging EPA policies under the Clean Air Act.
The first case involves the EPA’s “Good Neighbor” smog control plan, which restricts ozone pollution from upwind states. The rule, issued in March 2023, targets emissions from power plants and other industrial sources in 23 states, which were failing to meet the “Good Neighbor” provisions of the Clean Air Act. Oklahoma and Utah, joined by other Republican-led states and energy companies, argue that the EPA’s rejection of their air quality plans should be treated as a local issue, allowing their lawsuit to be heard in regional courts like the Denver-based 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. However, a lower court ruled that the case should be transferred to the D.C. Circuit, prompting the states to appeal to the Supreme Court.
In a second case, the Supreme Court will weigh a challenge by small refiners against the EPA’s denial of waivers from biofuel mandates. The EPA’s decision to deny these waivers was initially overturned by the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which deemed the agency’s actions unlawful. The EPA argues that the case should not have been heard in the 5th Circuit because the denial of waivers was part of a broader, nationwide decision affecting refineries across multiple states.
Both cases hinge on a key provision of the Clean Air Act that designates the D.C. Circuit as the court for nationally applicable EPA actions, while local or regional actions are typically handled by regional appeals courts. The Supreme Court’s decision could clarify this distinction and determine how future legal challenges to the EPA’s policies are managed.
The outcomes of these cases are likely to have significant implications for the future of environmental regulations and the authority of regional courts in addressing challenges to federal agency actions. The Supreme Court’s decision will be closely watched by states, industry groups, and environmental advocates, as it could influence how the EPA’s clean air initiatives are implemented and challenged in court.
The cases before the Supreme Court are Oklahoma v. EPA, No. 23-1067, and EPA v. Calumet Shreveport Refining, No. 23-1229. The court is expected to issue rulings that could have far-reaching consequences for the EPA’s ability to enforce national environmental policies.
For any enquiries or information, contact ask@tlr.ae or call us on +971 52 644 3004. Follow The Law Reporters on WhatsApp Channels
For expats living abroad, selling property or major investments in their home country often brings up the issue of ‘capital gains tax.’ This tax is commonly applied when selling assets such as real estate, shares, or other investments, and it can vary depending on the country’s tax laws. Here’s what you need to know about how it works and how it can impact you.
Capital gains tax is levied on the profit made from the sale of an asset, and it is essential to understand how this profit is calculated. The tax is based on the difference between the purchase price and the sale price of the asset, minus any allowable expenses such as renovation costs or legal fees.
Many governments worldwide offer various tax relief options to help reduce the burden of capital gains tax. These may include exemptions for primary residences, allowances for depreciation, or tax treaties between countries that prevent double taxation. It's essential to familiarize yourself with the specific tax rules of both your home country and the country where you reside to optimize your tax situation.
Expats should seek professional advice to ensure they meet their tax obligations and take advantage of any available tax breaks. By carefully planning the sale of property or investments, you can navigate the complexities of capital gains tax while minimizing its impact on your finances.
For any enquiries or information, contact ask@tlr.ae or call us on +971 52 644 3004. Follow The Law Reporters on WhatsApp Channels
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) issued a final rule that significantly impacts the handling of motions to amend during inter partes review (IPR) proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). IPRs have become an integral part of patent litigation, allowing third parties to challenge the validity of issued patent claims.
Under the America Invents Act (AIA), IPRs allow a patent owner to file a motion to amend the original claims of a patent if the PTAB finds the challenged claims unpatentable. This process is governed by 35 U.S.C. § 316(d). If the motion is granted, the amended claims replace the original claims in the patent.
Key Changes in the Final Rule
The USPTO’s September 18, 2024 final rule introduces important changes to the motion to amend process, largely in response to public comments on the proposed rulemaking issued on March 4, 2024. This final rule codifies several provisions from the USPTO’s motion to amend pilot program, first introduced in March 2019, aimed at improving the chances of patent owners successfully amending claims.
One of the key provisions of the final rule is the patent owner’s ability to receive preliminary guidance from the PTAB on proposed claim amendments before the final written decision. This guidance offers the patent owner feedback that may improve the likelihood of having a motion to amend granted, addressing a longstanding criticism that the PTAB rarely granted such motions under the previous framework.
Historical Challenges and the Evolution of Motions to Amend
Initially, motions to amend in IPRs faced criticism, particularly due to the low rate at which the PTAB granted them. A central issue was whether the PTAB could independently raise grounds of unpatentability for the proposed amended claims, especially when the petitioner did not oppose the motion. The new rule helps clarify these concerns by formalizing the process and providing patent owners with early feedback, increasing transparency and predictability in IPR proceedings.
The Impact of Preliminary Guidance
The preliminary guidance offered under the final rule allows patent owners to refine their amendments based on PTAB feedback before a final decision is issued. This provision aligns with the USPTO’s effort to streamline the process and reduce the procedural disadvantages faced by patent owners in IPRs. While not binding, the guidance can serve as an essential tool in strengthening motions to amend and avoiding unnecessary litigation steps.
Conclusion
The USPTO’s final rule on motions to amend in IPRs marks a significant shift in patent litigation practice. By codifying the ability to receive preliminary PTAB guidance and addressing past criticisms, the new rule aims to create a more balanced and efficient system for patent owners seeking to amend claims. As these changes take effect, they are likely to alter the dynamics of IPR proceedings and provide patent owners with enhanced opportunities to protect their intellectual property.
For any enquiries or information, contact ask@tlr.ae or call us on +971 52 644 3004. Follow The Law Reporters on WhatsApp Channels
Walmart Inc. has reached a settlement in a series of shareholder lawsuits accusing the retail giant of mishandling its role in the distribution and sale of opioids, the company. The lawsuits alleged that Walmart failed to adequately address concerns about its pharmacies contributing to the opioid crisis, a long-standing public health issue that has claimed hundreds of thousands of lives in the U.S. over the past two decades.
Settlement Terms
While the exact financial terms of the settlement have not been disclosed, the company will pay a significant amount to resolve the claims brought forward by shareholders. These lawsuits targeted Walmart’s corporate governance, accusing executives and board members of neglecting oversight responsibilities as the company’s pharmacies continued to fill opioid prescriptions, despite concerns about their role in fueling the crisis. The settlement brings an end to years of legal battles over the company’s actions related to opioid distribution.
In a statement, Walmart noted that while the settlement does not include any admission of wrongdoing, it is part of a broader effort by the company to "focus on its future while contributing to efforts to combat the opioid epidemic." The retailer added that it remains committed to enhancing its compliance programs and expanding efforts to prevent the misuse of controlled substances.
Background on the Lawsuits
The shareholder lawsuits were part of a wave of legal actions against major companies involved in the opioid supply chain. Walmart, like other pharmacy chains, faced scrutiny from federal regulators, state governments, and private litigants over its role in distributing prescription opioids, which are linked to widespread addiction and overdose deaths.
According to the plaintiffs, Walmart’s board of directors failed to respond appropriately to numerous red flags regarding suspicious opioid prescriptions being filled at its pharmacies. The lawsuits argued that this alleged inaction led to significant legal and reputational risks for the company, ultimately harming shareholders.
The legal battles against Walmart mirrored those faced by other pharmacy chains like CVS and Walgreens, which have also been implicated in the opioid epidemic. Pharmaceutical manufacturers and distributors, including Purdue Pharma and Johnson & Johnson, have likewise faced multibillion-dollar settlements and fines for their roles in the crisis.
Walmart’s Role in the Opioid Crisis
Walmart’s legal troubles in the opioid space began as part of a broader national reckoning over the role that corporations played in fueling the epidemic. The retailer operated one of the largest pharmacy networks in the U.S. and was accused of not adequately monitoring or reporting suspicious opioid prescriptions as required by law.
In 2020, Walmart faced a lawsuit from the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), which alleged that the company violated federal law by filling thousands of questionable opioid prescriptions. The DOJ accused Walmart of pressuring pharmacists to quickly dispense opioids, sometimes against their better judgment. The company has denied these allegations, asserting that its pharmacists were caught between doctors writing prescriptions and regulators seeking to enforce stricter controls.
Corporate Governance Concerns
At the heart of the shareholder lawsuits was the question of corporate governance and whether Walmart’s board and executives exercised proper oversight of the company’s pharmacy operations. Shareholders argued that the company’s leadership failed to mitigate known risks and did not act swiftly enough to address the increasing legal exposure related to opioid distribution.
The lawsuits claimed that Walmart’s lack of proactive measures to address the opioid crisis caused the company to face extensive legal liabilities, damaging its reputation and stock value. As a result, shareholders sought accountability through the courts, arguing that the board’s inaction constituted a breach of fiduciary duty.
Opioid Crisis Settlements and Corporate Accountability
Walmart’s settlement comes as part of a broader trend of corporate accountability in the opioid epidemic. In recent years, pharmaceutical manufacturers, distributors, and pharmacy chains have agreed to multibillion-dollar settlements to resolve thousands of lawsuits brought by states, cities, and individuals affected by the crisis.
Companies like McKesson, AmerisourceBergen, and Cardinal Health—some of the largest drug distributors in the country—have reached massive settlements, committing billions to fund addiction treatment and prevention efforts. Purdue Pharma, the maker of OxyContin, has also been at the center of the legal reckoning, culminating in a bankruptcy plan that involves restructuring the company and using its assets to address the opioid crisis.
Walmart’s settlement with shareholders highlights the increasing pressure on corporations not only to prevent harm but also to ensure adequate oversight of their operations. For shareholders, the settlement represents a victory in holding corporate boards accountable for their decision-making, particularly when public health and safety are at stake.
Looking Ahead
As part of its continued efforts, Walmart has pledged to strengthen its compliance programs and work closely with regulators to prevent the misuse of opioids in the future. The company is expected to enhance monitoring practices and ensure that its pharmacies comply with legal requirements for dispensing controlled substances.
While the settlement closes a chapter in Walmart’s legal battles related to the opioid crisis, it underscores the broader responsibility that corporations face in preventing the abuse of dangerous substances. As lawsuits continue against other major players in the pharmaceutical and retail industries, the opioid epidemic remains a critical issue that will likely shape corporate governance, regulatory practices, and public health policies in the years to come.
Conclusion
Walmart’s settlement with its shareholders over opioid-related lawsuits marks an important development in the ongoing legal response to the opioid crisis. The case serves as a reminder of the need for vigilant corporate governance and the importance of safeguarding public health in corporate decision-making. As companies across industries work to mitigate the impact of their actions on the opioid epidemic, settlements like this one demonstrate that accountability, even after harm has occurred, remains a vital part of addressing the crisis.
For any enquiries or information, contact ask@tlr.ae or call us on +971 52 644 3004. Follow The Law Reporters on WhatsApp Channels
As 2024 unfolds, European employers are grappling with a complex set of challenges that are shaping the future of work. Among the top concerns are economic uncertainty and the rapid advancements in artificial intelligence (AI), both of which are significantly influencing business strategies, employment patterns, and skill requirements across the continent.
Economic Concerns Amid Global Instability
One of the primary issues troubling European employers is the ongoing economic uncertainty, exacerbated by global factors such as inflation, rising energy prices, and geopolitical tensions. The war in Ukraine, fluctuating commodity prices, and supply chain disruptions have placed immense pressure on businesses, particularly those in manufacturing, retail, and logistics. Employers are increasingly worried about cost management, reduced consumer spending, and declining profit margins.
Inflation remains a major concern, with the European Central Bank (ECB) continuing its efforts to balance inflation control with economic growth. The persistent inflationary pressures have resulted in higher operational costs for businesses, particularly in sectors reliant on raw materials and energy. As a result, many companies are forced to reassess their pricing strategies, which in turn affects competitiveness in both domestic and international markets.
Moreover, the rising cost of living has heightened concerns about wage demands. Employers are under pressure to offer competitive salaries and benefits to retain talent, while simultaneously managing tight budgets. The risk of a potential economic slowdown also looms large, making it difficult for businesses to plan long-term investments in growth and innovation.
AI and Automation: Opportunities and Challenges
Alongside economic concerns, the rapid advancement of artificial intelligence (AI) and automation is reshaping the European labor market. Employers recognize the potential of AI to enhance productivity, streamline operations, and reduce costs. However, these technological advancements also pose significant challenges, particularly in terms of workforce readiness and job displacement.
AI’s impact is most visible in sectors such as manufacturing, finance, healthcare, and retail, where automation is increasingly replacing manual tasks. While AI adoption can drive efficiency, many employers are concerned about the displacement of low- and mid-skilled jobs. The European Commission has projected that automation could affect nearly half of all jobs in Europe over the next decade, raising the urgency for reskilling and upskilling initiatives.
In response, many European employers are investing in retraining programs to equip their workforce with the skills necessary to thrive in an AI-driven economy. Digital literacy, data analytics, and machine learning expertise are becoming critical for employees across industries. However, the speed of AI advancements poses a challenge, as traditional education and training systems struggle to keep pace with the demand for new skills.
AI is also transforming decision-making processes within organizations. Employers are increasingly using AI-driven analytics to improve hiring practices, optimize supply chains, and predict consumer behavior. While this shift offers significant benefits, it raises concerns about ethical considerations, including data privacy, algorithmic bias, and the transparency of AI decisions.
Balancing Innovation with Workforce Well-being
As employers navigate the dual pressures of economic uncertainty and AI transformation, there is a growing recognition of the need to balance innovation with workforce well-being. The rise of AI has sparked discussions about the future of work, including the need for flexible working arrangements, mental health support, and a stronger focus on employee well-being.
Many European employers are embracing hybrid work models that combine in-office and remote work, reflecting the post-pandemic shift in employee expectations. These models not only improve work-life balance but also offer businesses cost-saving opportunities through reduced office space requirements. However, managing a hybrid workforce comes with its own set of challenges, particularly in terms of maintaining team cohesion, ensuring productivity, and providing adequate technological infrastructure.
Additionally, the rise of AI has sparked debates about the ethical implications of its widespread use. Employers are increasingly aware of the need to ensure that AI-driven systems are transparent, fair, and do not perpetuate existing biases. The European Union has taken a proactive approach by proposing regulations on AI to ensure that the technology is developed and deployed responsibly.
Conclusion
Economic concerns and the rise of AI are reshaping the priorities of European employers in 2024. Businesses across the continent are facing the dual challenge of managing economic instability while preparing for the disruptive impact of AI and automation. As employers navigate these uncertainties, a focus on innovation, workforce development, and ethical AI adoption will be key to ensuring long-term resilience and success.
By investing in new technologies, reskilling initiatives, and flexible work arrangements, European employers can position themselves to thrive in an increasingly dynamic and competitive global economy. However, balancing the opportunities and risks presented by AI with the need to safeguard employee well-being will be essential in shaping a sustainable and inclusive future of work.
For any enquiries or information, contact ask@tlr.ae or call us on +971 52 644 3004. Follow The Law Reporters on WhatsApp Channels
In a significant ruling, a National Labour Relations Board (NLRB) administrative judge has determined that IT services provider NTT Data did not violate federal labor laws by requiring its employees to sign noncompete agreements. The decision, issued on Thursday by Administrative Law Judge G. Rebekah Ramirez in Detroit, stands in contrast to a previous ruling in June in a similar case involving an HVAC company.
The Ruling and Its Impact
Judge Ramirez’s decision supports NTT Data’s use of noncompete agreements, which prevent laid-off employees from poaching coworkers or clients for a specified period after their termination. The ruling breaks with a landmark decision from June, where another NLRB judge concluded that a similar noncompete agreement violated the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The five-member NLRB is currently reviewing that earlier ruling.
This decision is noteworthy because NLRB General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo has been pushing for stricter limits on noncompete agreements. Last year, Abruzzo argued that such agreements often infringe on workers' rights under the NLRA, specifically their rights to organize and advocate for better working conditions. In her 2023 memo, Abruzzo suggested that noncompete agreements generally prevent employees from engaging in protected activities, such as organizing protests or encouraging co-workers to join competitors.
The Legal Battle Over Noncompetes
The legal status of noncompete agreements has been a contentious issue in the United States. According to the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC), approximately 20% of U.S. workers—around 30 million people—are subject to noncompete clauses. These agreements typically restrict former employees from working for competitors, soliciting current employees to leave, or poaching clients for a set period after leaving the company.
In January 2024, the FTC introduced a new rule that would have banned noncompete agreements nationwide. However, a federal judge in Texas blocked the rule in August, leaving the legal landscape for noncompetes in a state of uncertainty.
NTT Data’s Noncompete Agreement
NTT Data, an IT services company headquartered in Tokyo with U.S. offices in Texas, required laid-off employees to sign severance agreements that included noncompete clauses. These agreements prevented former employees from performing similar services for NTT's customers, soliciting NTT employees to quit, or encouraging clients to sever ties with the company for one year following their termination.
Abruzzo’s office filed a complaint last year, arguing that the noncompete agreements violated workers' rights under the NLRA. The complaint mirrored Abruzzo's earlier stance that noncompetes unlawfully restrict workers' ability to advocate for better working conditions by preventing actions such as organizing mass resignations or encouraging colleagues to join competitors.
However, Judge Ramirez ruled in favor of NTT Data, noting that the company's noncompete agreements do not entirely prevent former employees from working for competitors but only restrict their ability to solicit NTT’s clients. The ruling acknowledged that while the agreements impose some limitations, they do not completely bar employees from engaging in work in the same industry or field.
Broader Implications
This ruling comes amid a broader debate over the legality of noncompete agreements in the U.S. While some view these agreements as necessary to protect companies' confidential information and client relationships, others argue that they stifle competition and limit employees’ ability to seek new job opportunities. The NLRB's ultimate decision, once the review of the June case is complete, could further clarify the scope and enforceability of noncompete agreements under federal labour law.
NTT Data has not yet commented on the ruling, and the case is expected to draw further attention as the legal landscape around noncompetes continues to evolve. The ruling highlights the ongoing legal tension between employers' efforts to protect their business interests and workers' rights to seek employment and engage in protected activities.
For any enquiries or information, contact ask@tlr.ae or call us on +971 52 644 3004. Follow The Law Reporters on WhatsApp Channels
The postponement of the European Union's deforestation law, designed to combat illegal deforestation tied to products like palm oil, soy, and beef, is financially harming companies that have proactively implemented sustainable measures in their supply chains. These businesses, which bear the cost of compliance, face an uneven playing field, as competitors without such measures continue operations without consequence. The delay hampers environmental protection efforts, frustrating industry leaders and stakeholders who warn that it undermines the EU’s climate goals and credibility on sustainability.
EU Deforestation Law: Background and Delay
The EU deforestation law, adopted in 2023, aims to restrict products associated with deforestation from entering the EU market. The regulation targets key commodities like palm oil, beef, coffee, and timber, which have significant links to illegal deforestation in tropical countries. It requires companies to ensure that their supply chains are free from deforestation and forest degradation before allowing goods into the EU market.
However, the law’s enforcement has been delayed due to logistical issues, including the need to develop specific rules for compliance and monitoring. This delay is having unintended consequences, especially for companies that have taken early action to align their operations with the forthcoming regulation.
Financial Losses for Proactive Companies
Many environmentally-conscious companies, eager to comply with the regulation, have invested heavily in sustainable supply chain practices. These companies anticipated that their proactive stance would give them a competitive advantage once the regulation was enforced. They implemented measures like satellite monitoring, traceability systems, and partnerships with local producers to ensure their products are deforestation-free.
However, with the law delayed, the financial burden of these efforts is mounting. These companies are incurring higher operational costs due to their sustainability initiatives, but are not reaping any regulatory or market rewards for their foresight. In the absence of enforcement, competitors that have not adopted such measures are able to sell their products at lower costs, creating an unfair market environment.
This situation is leading to significant financial strain for the more responsible companies, as they are unable to capitalize on their investments in sustainability. Moreover, the delay undermines consumer trust in the EU's commitment to addressing global deforestation and climate change.
Impact on Global Deforestation Efforts
The EU deforestation law is considered a critical tool in the fight against global deforestation, which contributes significantly to climate change and biodiversity loss. Tropical forests in countries like Brazil, Indonesia, and the Democratic Republic of Congo are rapidly disappearing, primarily due to the expansion of agriculture for commodity production. The law is expected to curb this destruction by holding companies accountable for the environmental impact of their supply chains.
However, the delay in implementation means that deforestation continues unchecked, as companies that are not yet compliant with the regulation are still able to operate without repercussions. Environmental groups warn that every day of delay results in more forest loss and greater damage to ecosystems and communities that depend on them.
Moreover, the lack of immediate enforcement sends a mixed message to companies and governments in producing countries. Without clear signals from the EU, there is less incentive for these countries to improve their environmental governance or for companies to invest in sustainable practices.
The Call for Immediate Action
Industry leaders, environmental groups, and vigilant companies are urging the EU to accelerate the law’s implementation. They argue that the delay is undermining the credibility of the EU’s environmental policies and threatening its ability to meet its climate goals.
Experts also stress that early action is crucial for establishing a level playing field in the market. Delaying the law disproportionately affects responsible businesses, while those that have not made sustainability commitments continue to benefit. Swift enforcement would help correct these market imbalances and reward companies that have made investments in sustainable practices.
Additionally, environmental advocates highlight the urgency of addressing deforestation to meet the EU’s broader climate targets, particularly in light of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the Paris Agreement commitments. The EU has positioned itself as a global leader in environmental sustainability, but delays like this threaten to erode its leadership role.
Conclusion
The delay in the EU deforestation law's implementation is causing substantial financial losses for companies that have invested in deforestation-free supply chains, while also allowing unsustainable practices to persist. For the EU to maintain its leadership in climate action and ensure a level playing field, swift enforcement of the law is essential. The delay not only harms proactive businesses but also undermines global efforts to curb deforestation and combat climate change. Immediate action is needed to protect forests and the companies committed to preserving them.
For any enquiries or information, contact ask@tlr.ae or call us on +971 52 644 3004. Follow The Law Reporters on WhatsApp Channels
Recent decisions from the European Patent Office (EPO) and the newly established Unitary Patent Court (UPC) have significantly influenced the evolving landscape of patent law, particularly in the life sciences sector.
One key area of development has been priority entitlement. This issue has surfaced in several major life science cases, including the revocation of the Broad Institute's CRISPR patents (EP2764103, EP2784162, and EP2896697) in 2019. The patents were invalidated due to inconsistencies between the applicants named on the priority and subsequent European patent applications. Since the right to claim priority wasn’t properly transferred, the patents lost their entitlement to priority, ultimately affecting their novelty.
However, the Enlarged Board of the EPO (EBA) took a more pragmatic stance in G1/22 and G2/22, which has reshaped how priority rights are handled. The Board introduced a rebuttable presumption that priority claims are valid, placing the burden on challengers to prove otherwise. This change is likely to reduce the frequency of priority-based formal challenges in EPO proceedings, as evidenced by recent decisions overturning earlier rulings on Broad Institute's patents.
Another significant development relates to post-published evidence used to demonstrate a technical effect and support an inventive step. In G2/21, the EBA allowed the submission of additional data, provided it was derived from the original application’s technical teaching. This decision eliminates the need for a "plausibility" test, simplifying the process for patentees. However, this approach is confined to inventive step assessments and does not apply to sufficient disclosure, which remains critical in life sciences, especially for second medical use claims.
The opening of the Unitary Patent Court (UPC) in June 2023 has also had a notable impact. A landmark decision from July 2024 (Sanofi vs. Amgen) highlighted the UPC's different approach to assessing inventive step. Unlike the EPO's "problem and solution" method, the UPC adopted a strategy reminiscent of German courts, using a "realistic starting point" for analysis and identifying an "underlying problem" from the patent description. This divergence may lead to varied outcomes in parallel opposition proceedings, with ongoing cases at the EPO potentially reaching different conclusions.
Looking ahead, several pending decisions will further shape European patent law. The EBA is expected to clarify the role of patent descriptions in claim interpretation (G1/24) and determine the prior art effect of products that are difficult to analyze or reproduce (G1/23). Additionally, the European Union is progressing toward reforming its Supplementary Protection Certificate (SPC) regime, introducing a unitary SPC to complement the Unitary Patent system, which will have significant implications for the pharmaceutical and life sciences industries.
Overall, European patent law remains dynamic, and developments in both the EPO and UPC will continue to influence the life sciences field in the years to come.
For any enquiries or information, contact ask@tlr.ae or call us on +971 52 644 3004. Follow The Law Reporters on WhatsApp Channels
In a significant legal development, the UK Court of Appeal has overturned a High Court ruling, granting Xiaomi the right to an interim licence to use Panasonic’s standard essential patents (SEPs) pending the determination of a global fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND) licence. The judgment, delivered by Lord Justice Richard Arnold on 3 October, was hailed as "groundbreaking" by Xiaomi’s legal team, led by Kirkland & Ellis.
The Dispute
The legal battle between Chinese tech giant Xiaomi and Japanese multinational Panasonic centers on licensing terms for Panasonic’s 3G and 4G patents. Proceedings began in July 2023, with Panasonic seeking an injunction and a declaration of infringement. Unable to agree on FRAND terms, the matter escalated to the UK courts, with parallel infringement cases also underway in the Unified Patent Court (UPC) and German courts in Munich and Mannheim.
Xiaomi had proposed taking an interim licence and paying royalties to Panasonic while waiting for the final decision from the Patents Court. However, Panasonic refused, prompting Xiaomi to seek court intervention.
Court of Appeal's Decision
The Court of Appeal, led by Lord Justice Arnold and supported by Lord Justice Moylan, found Panasonic’s refusal to negotiate an interim licence "indefensible." The court ruled that a willing licensor in Panasonic’s position would have entered into such an agreement, especially since both companies had agreed to follow the English court’s determination of FRAND terms.
The court criticized Panasonic for attempting to coerce Xiaomi into accepting more favorable terms through the threat of injunctions in foreign courts. It stated that Panasonic’s conduct violated its obligation under the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI) rules to negotiate in good faith and avoid pressuring Xiaomi through exclusionary measures.
Key Points of the Judgment
Lord Justice Phillips, while agreeing that Panasonic's conduct was "indefensible," expressed doubt that Panasonic was obligated to enter into an interim licence on terms not yet proven to be FRAND.
Legal Representation
Xiaomi was represented by Kirkland & Ellis, with partners Nicola Dagg, Jin Ooi, and Steve Baldwin leading the case. Panasonic’s legal team included Blackstone Chambers' Andrew Scott KC and 8 New Square’s Isabel Jamal, instructed by Bristows.
Conclusion
The decision marks a significant moment in SEP litigation, with the UK courts stepping in to protect Xiaomi from undue pressure by granting an interim licence. This ruling sets a precedent for future FRAND disputes, emphasizing the importance of good faith negotiations and fair treatment of licensees in the global tech landscape. The FRAND trial is scheduled to begin on 31 October 2024, presided over by Lord Justice Meade.
For any enquiries or information, contact ask@tlr.ae or call us on +971 52 644 3004. Follow The Law Reporters on WhatsApp Channels
Germany’s Federal Cartel Office (Bundeskartellamt) has announced plans to intensify its oversight of Microsoft, utilizing its expanded powers to regulate large tech firms. This move comes in response to concerns over Microsoft's market dominance in cloud computing, operating systems, and software, which could potentially stifle competition. The Cartel Office aims to ensure fair competition by monitoring whether Microsoft is using its influential market position unfairly.
This regulatory focus on Microsoft follows similar actions against other tech giants, including Amazon, Google, and Meta. These measures are part of broader efforts in the European Union to regulate major digital platforms and ensure the digital economy remains competitive and innovation-friendly. The German watchdog has a history of investigating anti-competitive practices, and its decision to scrutinize Microsoft is seen as part of its broader goal of curbing the power of major tech players.
The Importance of Microsoft's Cooperation
The success of this heightened scrutiny largely depends on Microsoft’s cooperation with the Federal Cartel Office. Microsoft has stated its willingness to engage with regulators and uphold competition laws. However, the tech giant’s ongoing regulatory compliance will be critical in determining the outcome of these investigations.
Microsoft’s expanding role in cloud computing and software solutions raises concerns among regulators over the possibility of market abuses. The Cartel Office will be evaluating whether Microsoft’s market practices are giving it undue advantages over competitors, particularly smaller firms that may be disadvantaged in a market dominated by a few key players.
Broader Implications for Big Tech in Europe
Germany’s actions against Microsoft are consistent with the European Union’s broader push to regulate Big Tech companies. The Digital Markets Act (DMA), passed in 2022, introduced significant obligations for large online platforms, aiming to curb monopolistic practices. With Microsoft now under similar scrutiny, the landscape for tech companies in Europe could see further shifts as competition authorities implement stricter oversight.
The Federal Cartel Office’s decision to prioritize Microsoft's case also reflects growing awareness of the need to foster innovation by preventing dominant companies from leveraging their position to block competitors. As Germany and the EU continue to refine their competition policies, tech firms like Microsoft will likely face ongoing regulatory pressure.
Looking Forward: Microsoft’s Future in the German Market
As the scrutiny continues, the question remains whether Microsoft will need to alter its business practices to comply with the new regulatory environment. German regulators will continue to assess the company’s influence over key market sectors, and their findings could lead to further actions, including fines or operational changes for Microsoft.
Overall, this latest development signals Germany’s commitment to ensuring a level playing field in the tech industry, where companies of all sizes can thrive without undue influence from dominant players like Microsoft.
For any enquiries or information, contact ask@tlr.ae or call us on +971 52 644 3004. Follow The Law Reporters on WhatsApp Channels
Former President Donald Trump plans to appeal a civil fraud judgment of nearly $500 million imposed by a New York court. The case, part of a broader investigation into Trump’s business practices, accuses him and his organization of inflating asset values to secure favourable loan terms and insurance benefits. New York Attorney General Letitia James led the case, asserting that Trump’s financial misrepresentations amounted to fraud.
The ruling could have significant financial and legal repercussions for Trump and his businesses, potentially impacting his extensive real estate empire and political future. His legal team is expected to argue that the judgment is based on overstated claims and lacks the necessary legal foundation to justify such a hefty penalty. Trump has consistently denied any wrongdoing, dismissing the lawsuit as politically motivated.
The appeal will be filed in the New York state appellate court, where Trump’s attorneys will aim to challenge both the findings of the lower court and the financial penalties that have been imposed. The appeals process will involve a detailed review of the trial court’s decision, focusing on legal errors and factual misinterpretations that Trump’s defense will highlight in their filings.
This case is one of many legal challenges Trump is currently facing, including federal investigations and state-level inquiries. Despite the mounting legal battles, Trump remains defiant, insisting that these cases are part of a broader effort to undermine his political career and business reputation.
Observers will be closely watching how the appellate court handles the case, as it may set a precedent for future civil fraud actions against high-profile business leaders. The outcome could also influence Trump’s ongoing political ambitions as he weighs his options for the upcoming election cycle.
The court is expected to hear arguments in the coming months, though the legal process could drag on, particularly if the case moves through further appeals or settlements. For now, Trump’s legal team is preparing for what is sure to be another closely watched legal showdown.
For any enquiries or information, contact ask@tlr.ae or call us on +971 52 644 3004. Follow The Law Reporters on WhatsApp Channels
In a striking legal dispute, the creators of the popular party game Cards Against Humanity have filed a $15 million lawsuit against Elon Musk's SpaceX. The case centers around claims that SpaceX has trespassed onto and polluted land owned by the company in South Texas, which Cards Against Humanity purchased in 2017. The land, acquired through a crowd-funding campaign with contributions from 150,000 individuals, was bought to prevent the construction of former President Trump's border wall.
According to the lawsuit, Cards Against Humanity accuses SpaceX of illegally using their land as a staging ground for construction materials and machinery, significantly altering the once-pristine environment. The company asserts that Musk's corporation made a lowball offer to buy the land, which they rejected, leading to the lawsuit. The company is seeking damages for the destruction of their property, with a portion of the lawsuit's proceeds potentially being distributed among their investors.
This case highlights growing concerns over SpaceX's environmental impact in the South Texas region, with local residents expressing frustration over the company's unchecked expansion
For any enquiries or information, contact ask@tlr.ae or call us on +971 52 644 3004. Follow The Law Reporters on WhatsApp Channels
Apple Inc. is facing significant pressure from the European Union (EU) to open its iPhone operating system (iOS) to rival technologies. Under the newly enacted Digital Markets Act (DMA), EU regulators are poised to issue a warning to Apple, compelling the tech giant to comply with regulations aimed at promoting competition and interoperability in the digital market. If Apple fails to adhere to these requirements, it may face substantial fines, potentially amounting to 10% of its global annual turnover.
Background
The Digital Markets Act, implemented to foster a fairer digital ecosystem, targets major tech companies classified as "gatekeepers." These gatekeepers are firms that hold a significant market position and are critical for accessing digital services. Apple, with its dominant position in the smartphone market, falls under this category. The DMA's intent is to dismantle barriers that hinder competition and innovation, ensuring that smaller developers can interact with larger platforms without undue restrictions.
Key Provisions of the Digital Markets Act
Legal Implications
From a legal standpoint, the warning from the EU represents a pivotal moment in the ongoing battle between regulatory authorities and tech giants over market control. The implications of non-compliance could be severe:
Potential Fines and Legal Consequences
If Apple does not conform to the DMA’s regulations, the EU may initiate a formal investigation, which could lead to fines of up to 10% of Apple’s global annual revenue. Given Apple’s revenues in 2023 were approximately $394 billion, this could translate to fines exceeding $39 billion.
Challenges to Compliance
Apple’s strict control over its ecosystem has been a cornerstone of its business strategy, enabling it to ensure security and performance standards. However, complying with the DMA may necessitate significant alterations to its operational model. This could involve re-engineering its software architecture and revising its terms of service, which could introduce complexity and risk.
Market Dynamics and Consumer Impact
The DMA aims to benefit consumers by fostering competition, potentially leading to enhanced services and lower prices. However, the immediate effect of increased interoperability might create short-term disruptions in the market as existing relationships and business models are challenged.
International Perspectives
Apple's situation in the EU is emblematic of a broader global trend where regulators are increasingly scrutinizing the practices of big tech companies. Similar legislative measures are being considered or implemented in other jurisdictions, including the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom, aimed at curbing monopolistic practices and enhancing consumer rights.
For instance, the U.S. Congress has been deliberating over antitrust legislation that mirrors some aspects of the DMA, focusing on breaking up monopolistic practices and enhancing competition in the tech sector. The outcome of these discussions could further influence Apple's operational strategies across multiple markets.
Conclusion
As the EU prepares to issue its warning under the Digital Markets Act, Apple faces a crucial juncture that could reshape its operational framework. The potential for hefty fines and the necessity for compliance pose significant challenges for the company. This situation reflects broader tensions between innovation and regulation in the tech industry, highlighting the need for a balanced approach that fosters competition while allowing for continued innovation. How Apple responds to these regulatory pressures will be closely watched, not just by the EU but by regulators worldwide, as the tech landscape continues to evolve.
For any enquiries or information, contact ask@tlr.ae or call us on +971 52 644 3004. Follow The Law Reporters on WhatsApp Channels.
The US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has accused major social media platforms of engaging in "vast surveillance" to monetize users' personal data, following a comprehensive years-long investigation. The report, based on inquiries launched nearly four years ago, revealed that companies collected massive amounts of data, sometimes even through brokers, and often retained it indefinitely—affecting both users and non-users alike.
FTC Chair Lina Khan criticized the practices, stating that they endangered individuals' privacy and exposed them to risks like identity theft and stalking. "The report shows how social media and video streaming companies exploit vast amounts of personal data, generating billions of dollars annually," Khan said. She also noted that the inadequate protection of children and teenagers online was particularly alarming.
The investigation found that social media companies' business models, particularly those relying on targeted advertising, incentivized large-scale data collection, often putting profit ahead of privacy. Khan emphasized that these practices could threaten freedoms and lead to significant harm, including identity theft and stalking.
The Interactive Advertising Bureau (IAB), however, disputed the FTC's portrayal of the industry. IAB CEO David Cohen argued that consumers understand and accept targeted ads as a way to access free online services, criticizing the FTC’s characterization of the industry as one focused on "mass surveillance."
The FTC's findings were based on information gathered from companies including Meta, YouTube, Snap, Amazon's Twitch, TikTok's parent company ByteDance, and X (formerly Twitter). While some companies, like Google, defended their practices—stating they don’t sell personal information and implement strict privacy protections—the report found these safeguards "woefully inadequate." It also noted that some firms failed to delete data upon users' requests, raising further concerns about how well companies protect personal data.
The report highlighted the negative impact of these platforms on children’s mental health and called for better data collection practices. Additionally, it urged the US Congress to enact comprehensive federal privacy legislation to curb the surveillance of social media users.
For any enquiries or information, contact ask@tlr.ae or call us on +971 52 644 3004. Follow The Law Reporters on WhatsApp Channels.
In a significant move towards global tax reform, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) has made strides in implementing the Global Minimum Corporate Tax Rate (GMCTR), a groundbreaking initiative aimed at curbing tax avoidance by multinational corporations. This global tax reform, set to be implemented in 2024, has far-reaching implications for businesses and governments alike. The GMCTR, part of the OECD's Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) initiative, imposes a minimum 15% tax rate on the profits of large multinational corporations, regardless of where they are headquartered or where their profits are generated.
Key Legal Developments:
Legal Implications for Multinational Corporations:
Looking Ahead:
The implementation of the Global Minimum Corporate Tax Rate is a significant legal update in the global taxation landscape, aiming to bring fairness and transparency to the taxation of multinational corporations. As countries continue to legislate and enforce these reforms, businesses must stay vigilant and proactive in adjusting to these changes to avoid potential penalties and legal challenges.
For any enquiries or information, contact ask@tlr.ae or call us on +971 52 644 3004. Follow The Law Reporters on WhatsApp Channels.
In a significant legal victory for the Bank of Montreal (BMO), a U.S. appeals court overturned a $564 million jury verdict against the bank’s subsidiary on Thursday. The verdict had previously been issued due to the subsidiary's alleged involvement in a $3.65 billion Ponzi scheme orchestrated by convicted Minnesota businessman Tom Petters.
The case, which has been closely watched due to the high-profile nature of the Ponzi scheme, involved a jury decision in 2022 that held the Bank of Montreal liable for its role in enabling Petters to carry out one of the largest frauds in U.S. history. The appeals court's decision, however, has now invalidated that judgment, sparing the bank from what would have been a substantial financial blow.
Background of the Ponzi Scheme
Tom Petters, a former Minnesota businessman, was convicted in 2009 for running a massive Ponzi scheme, in which he defrauded investors out of approximately $3.65 billion. Petters promised investors returns from what he claimed were lucrative deals in the electronics business, specifically the sale of electronics to major retailers. However, the entire operation was fraudulent, with Petters using money from new investors to pay off earlier ones, a classic Ponzi scheme tactic.
In 2010, Petters was sentenced to 50 years in prison for his crimes. Since then, multiple lawsuits have been filed against various entities accused of facilitating or turning a blind eye to Petters' fraudulent activities.
The Role of Bank of Montreal’s Subsidiary
The $564 million jury verdict against the Bank of Montreal stemmed from its subsidiary’s involvement in handling financial transactions for Petters' scheme. Prosecutors argued that the subsidiary had either knowingly or negligently allowed Petters to conduct illicit financial activities, which enabled the Ponzi scheme to continue and expand.
The jury had initially found in favor of the plaintiffs, awarding them a substantial judgment against the bank. This decision was seen as a win for those seeking justice on behalf of the victims who lost billions in the fraudulent scheme.
Appeals Court Overturns Verdict
The U.S. Court of Appeals, in its ruling, voided the $564 million verdict, citing several reasons. Key among them was a lack of sufficient evidence proving that the bank's subsidiary knowingly participated in Petters' illegal activities. The court found that while the bank may have processed transactions connected to Petters, there was no direct proof that it had intent or knowledge of the fraudulent nature of the scheme.
The appeals court also pointed out errors in the trial process, including misinterpretations of legal standards and insufficient jury instructions, which contributed to their decision to overturn the verdict.
Bank of Montreal’s Reaction
Following the appeals court decision, Bank of Montreal expressed satisfaction with the outcome. In a statement, the bank said, "We have always maintained that BMO acted appropriately and in accordance with all legal and regulatory requirements. We are pleased that the court recognized this and overturned the previous verdict."
The ruling removes a significant financial liability from the bank’s books, which would have been a major hit to its operations and investor confidence.
Implications of the Ruling
The overturning of the $564 million judgment is a critical development for financial institutions involved in fraud-related lawsuits. The case underscores the complexity of holding banks liable for the actions of their clients, particularly in cases where the clients are engaged in criminal activities unbeknownst to the bank.
This ruling could set a precedent for future cases where financial institutions are accused of facilitating illegal activities. It reinforces the need for concrete evidence of intent or knowledge of wrongdoing to hold such institutions accountable for the actions of their clients.
What’s Next?
While the appeals court’s decision is a significant win for Bank of Montreal, it is unclear whether the plaintiffs will seek further legal action. They could potentially request a rehearing of the case or escalate the matter to the U.S. Supreme Court. For now, the ruling brings an end to a major legal battle stemming from one of the largest Ponzi schemes in U.S. history.
For the victims of Tom Petters’ fraudulent activities, this ruling may represent a setback in their quest for compensation. Many have been fighting for over a decade to recover their lost investments, and the overturned verdict could impact the amount they ultimately receive.
Despite this, the case highlights the importance of vigilance in financial dealings and the role of regulatory oversight in preventing such schemes from occurring in the first place.
Key Takeaways:
- A U.S. appeals court has overturned a $564 million verdict against Bank of Montreal over its subsidiary’s alleged involvement in Tom Petters' $3.65 billion Ponzi scheme.
- The court found insufficient evidence that the bank knowingly participated in or facilitated Petters' fraudulent activities.
- This ruling is a significant legal win for Bank of Montreal and may influence future cases involving financial institutions and fraud claims.
- The decision marks a setback for the victims of Petters’ Ponzi scheme, who have been seeking compensation for their losses.
This case serves as a reminder of the complexities of legal accountability in large-scale financial fraud and the challenges victims face in pursuing justice.
For any enquiries or information, contact ask@tlr.ae or call us on +971 52 644 3004. Follow The Law Reporters on WhatsApp Channels.
The UK has taken a pioneering step by signing the world’s first legally binding international treaty on artificial intelligence (AI), ensuring the alignment of AI systems with human rights, democracy, and the rule of law. This historic agreement, known as the Council of Europe Framework Convention on AI, was introduced at a conference of European justice ministers in Vilnius on September 6, 2024.
The treaty has been signed by several nations, including the UK, Iceland, Norway, Andorra, the Republic of Moldova, and Georgia, alongside non-European countries such as Israel, the United States, and members of the European Union. The agreement seeks to regulate the ethical use of AI while safeguarding essential values like democracy and human rights.
The UK’s lord chancellor and justice secretary, Shabana Mahmood, emphasized that the treaty represents a significant step in ensuring that AI technologies enhance, rather than erode, fundamental values. She noted, "This convention is a major step to ensuring that these new technologies can be harnessed without eroding our oldest values, like human rights and the rule of law."
The Framework Convention’s importance was echoed by Marija Pejčinović Burić, secretary general of the Council of Europe. She remarked on the necessity of the treaty to ensure AI systems comply with global standards: "The Framework Convention is designed to ensure that AI upholds our standards rather than undermining them."
This groundbreaking treaty aims to set a global standard for ethical AI usage. Once five signatories, including at least three Council of Europe member states, ratify it, the treaty will officially enter into force. Countries worldwide are encouraged to join and commit to its provisions, ensuring that AI technologies are developed and used responsibly.
The treaty is expected to foster global cooperation in AI governance, and with ongoing technological advancements, it marks a crucial effort to safeguard human rights in the digital age. As nations continue to adopt AI technologies across various sectors, this agreement lays a strong foundation for ensuring ethical practices while mitigating risks associated with AI misuse.
This landmark treaty is likely the first of many steps toward creating a global AI regulatory framework that will shape the future of AI development worldwide.
For any enquiries or information, contact ask@tlr.ae or call us on +971 52 644 3004. Follow The Law Reporters on WhatsApp Channels.
In a high-level meeting aimed at deepening bilateral ties and addressing key regional issues, President His Highness Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan and President Nikos Christodoulides of Cyprus held talks on Tuesday, focusing on strategic cooperation between their countries. The discussions, which took place in Abu Dhabi, centered on enhancing relations in the economic and developmental sectors while also addressing broader regional concerns, including humanitarian aid efforts for Gaza.
Strengthening Bilateral Relations
President His Highness Sheikh Mohamed warmly welcomed President Christodoulides, expressing his optimism about the visit's potential to advance the already robust relationship between the UAE and Cyprus. He emphasized that the two nations share a vision of mutual cooperation, particularly in sectors such as trade, investment, and sustainable development. Both leaders acknowledged the importance of continuing to explore new avenues for economic collaboration that would serve their respective national interests.
Focus on Economic and Developmental Cooperation
During the talks, the two presidents highlighted the critical role that economic cooperation plays in the UAE-Cyprus relationship. They discussed opportunities to enhance trade, increase investment flows, and collaborate in key developmental areas, including technology, energy, and infrastructure.
The leaders noted the potential for Cyprus to act as a gateway for UAE businesses seeking access to European markets, while the UAE, as a regional economic powerhouse, offers Cypriot businesses the opportunity to expand into the Middle East and North Africa.
Maritime Aid Corridor for Gaza
Another key topic of discussion was the humanitarian situation in Gaza. Both presidents expressed their concern about the ongoing crisis and explored the idea of establishing a maritime aid corridor to facilitate the delivery of essential supplies to the region. This initiative, aimed at providing critical support to the people of Gaza, would be a significant step toward alleviating the humanitarian challenges in the area.
President His Highness Sheikh Mohamed reiterated the UAE’s commitment to supporting peace and stability in the region, while President Christodoulides emphasized Cyprus’s strategic location and willingness to contribute to regional humanitarian efforts.
Broader Regional and International Cooperation
Beyond bilateral cooperation, the leaders also discussed broader regional developments, sharing views on geopolitical issues affecting the Middle East, Europe, and the Eastern Mediterranean. They agreed to continue coordinating on international platforms and working together to address challenges such as climate change, security, and sustainable development.
Conclusion
The meeting in Abu Dhabi marked a new chapter in UAE-Cyprus relations, with both President Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan and President Nikos Christodoulides underscoring their commitment to deepening cooperation across multiple levels. As the two nations look ahead, their focus on strengthening economic ties and addressing key regional challenges promises to bring about mutual benefits and foster greater stability and prosperity in the region.
This strategic dialogue between the UAE and Cyprus reflects the strong, evolving relationship between the two nations and their shared commitment to advancing regional peace and development.
For any enquiries or information, contact ask@tlr.ae or call us on +971 52 644 3004. Follow The Law Reporters on WhatsApp Channels.
Google’s highly profitable ad tech business is under scrutiny as the U.S. government begins a trial, accusing the tech giant’s parent company, Alphabet, of monopolizing the digital advertising market. The trial, starting on Monday, marks the second major antitrust case against Google in the U.S., following a similar ruling last month regarding its dominance in online search.
The Department of Justice (DoJ) argues that Google has illegally stifled competition and innovation in the digital ad space, leveraging its power to maintain control over the industry. Last year, Alphabet generated over $200 billion from placing and selling online ads, a major driver of the company’s revenue. Google contends that its success is due to the effectiveness of its services, not anti-competitive practices, and points to growing competition from companies like Apple, Amazon, and TikTok as evidence of a healthy marketplace.
However, prosecutors claim Google's dominance has allowed it to suppress rival technologies. At the 2023 press conference announcing the lawsuit, U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland stated that Google’s actions have stunted the development of competitive ad tech solutions.
Both sides will present their arguments before U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema, with the outcome expected to have significant implications for the digital advertising industry. This trial follows a landmark decision in another case, where a judge ruled Google's dominance in online search as illegal.
While Google defends its position, stating that advertisers use its technologies because they are effective, experts believe the DoJ will seek remedies rather than breaking up the company. Dan Ives of Wedbush Securities anticipates "business model tweaks" rather than a complete dismantling of Google.
The challenge for the DoJ lies in explaining the complexities of ad tech to prove their case. Unlike search engines, which are easily understood by the public, the intricacies of advertising technology may complicate the government's efforts to present a clear argument of monopolization.
Outside the U.S., regulators in the UK have also raised concerns about Google’s ad tech business. The UK’s Competition and Markets Authority recently found that Google may be using anti-competitive practices to dominate the online advertising market, potentially harming thousands of UK advertisers and publishers. Google, however, has called the findings “flawed.”
As the case unfolds, the stakes are high for both the future of digital advertising and Google’s standing in the global tech industry.
For any enquiries or information, contact ask@tlr.ae or call us on +971 52 644 3004. Follow The Law Reporters on WhatsApp Channels.
French authorities have prolonged the detention of Telegram founder and CEO Pavel Durov, who was arrested at a Paris airport over allegations that his messaging app aids criminal activities, including money laundering and drug trafficking.
An investigating magistrate has ordered that Durov, 39, remain in detention beyond Sunday night, as reported by the AFP news agency, citing a source close to the investigation. Durov may be held for up to 96 hours for questioning, after which he must either be charged or released.
According to local sources, Durov was travelling on his private jet from Azerbaijan and was targeted by a French arrest warrant as part of a preliminary investigation.
France’s OFMIN, the agency responsible for tackling violence against minors, is investigating Durov, who was born in Russia, in relation to alleged offences such as fraud, drug trafficking, cyberbullying, organised crime, and terrorism promotion.
This information was reported by AFP, quoting officials who requested anonymity.
Durov is accused of not preventing the use of his app for criminal activities.
Both TF1 TV and BFM TV, citing unnamed sources, reported that the investigation is centred on alleged inadequacies in moderation on the platform. Telegram has stated that Durov “has nothing to hide” and frequently travels across Europe.
“Telegram complies with EU regulations, including the Digital Services Act -- its moderation practices align with industry standards,” the platform said in a statement.
“It is absurd to suggest that a platform or its owner are responsible for misuse of the platform.”
The Russian embassy in France has demanded consular access to Durov and called for the protection of his rights, according to the Russian state news agency TASS.
The embassy claimed that France has so far “avoided engagement” on Durov’s situation, but Russian diplomats are in contact with his lawyer.
Telegram, which has nearly 1 billion users, was established by Durov and his brother in 2013 in Russia.
Durov left Russia in 2014 in search of a new base for his company, exploring cities such as Berlin, Singapore, and San Francisco before settling in Dubai. Following Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, Telegram became a major source of unfiltered and sometimes graphic content from both sides in the conflict.|
The app is widely used by Russian and Ukrainian officials, including Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.
Several European countries, including France, have expressed concerns about the app regarding security and data privacy.
In response to Durov’s arrest, Mikhail Ulyanov, Russia’s permanent representative to the United Nations in Vienna, accused France of behaving like a “totalitarian” society. “Some naive individuals still fail to grasp that if they play a more visible role in the international information sphere, visiting countries that are becoming increasingly totalitarian is unsafe,” Ulyanov wrote on X.
Several Russian bloggers have called for protests outside French embassies worldwide.
Ben Aris, editor-in-chief of bne IntelliNews, told Al Jazeera that Durov is also facing issues in Russia for refusing to provide the Kremlin with electronic keys to access private Telegram messages.
Russia began blocking Telegram in 2018 after the app refused to comply with a court order to grant state security services access to users’ encrypted messages.
“Durov was in Azerbaijan where Putin recently visited… He is likely attempting to persuade Putin to lift the ban on Telegram in Russia,” Aris said.
Meanwhile, tech mogul and billionaire Elon Musk has also criticised Durov’s arrest, writing on X: “It’s 2030 in Europe, and you’re being executed for liking a meme.”
For any enquiries or information, contact ask@tlr.ae or call us on +971 52 644 3004. Follow The Law Reporters on WhatsApp Channels.
A national judicial conduct committee has upheld a panel's findings that a now-former federal judge in Alaska committed misconduct by engaging in an inappropriate sexualised relationship with one of his law clerks and creating a hostile work environment for court employees.
The Judicial Conference's Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability on Thursday affirmed a decision by the 9th Circuit Judicial Council that prompted US District Judge Joshua Kindred to resign from the bench last month.
The five-member panel found that the council had conducted a "thorough investigation," afforded Kindred all the due process and had ordered "appropriate" remedial measures in response to the "seriousness of the misconduct."
Those measures involved reprimanding Kindred and asking for his voluntary resignation. The council had also referred the case to the federal judiciary's top policymaking body, the Judicial Conference, to consider recommending Kindred's impeachment in Congress.
The panel called the 9th Circuit's decision to make an impeachment referral appropriate, but did not address whether the Judicial Conference should ultimately recommend Kindred's impeachment.
That question remains before the full Judicial Conference. If Kindred were impeached and convicted in a US Senate trial, he could be barred from holding any federal office in the future.
Kindred, an appointee of Republican former President Donald Trump, had served only four years on the bench when he resigned in a sexual misconduct scandal that has raised questions about cases he oversaw and prompted calls by some lawmakers for greater workplace protections for judicial employees.
The 9th Circuit's investigation found that Kindred created a hostile work environment for his clerks by using crude language and discussing with them his sex life, their relationships and his "disparaging" views of colleagues and public figures.
Investigators found he also fostered an inappropriately sexualised relationship with a law clerk who he then had two sexual encounters with in October 2022 after she took a new job in the US Attorney's Office.
That ex-clerk has filed a complaint with the US Office of Special Counsel alleging the office's leaders retaliated against her after she informed superiors about Kindred's conduct.
The 9th Circuit inquiry also identified potential conflicts of interest that Kindred had with other lawyers, including with a senior prosecutor who had a "flirtatious rapport" with the judge and had sent him nude photographs.
Such conflicts, if not known to the parties, could be grounds for defense lawyers to challenge convictions or sentences imposed while cases were before Kindred. Prosecutors have identified dozens of cases in which such conflicts may have existed.
For any enquiries or information, contact ask@tlr.ae or call us on +971 52 644 3004. Follow The Law Reporters on WhatsApp Channels.
President Abdel Fattah Al-Sisi has instructed the Egyptian government to promptly enact the recommendations regarding pre-trial detention and criminal justice that emerged from the National Dialogue.
In a statement, the Egyptian Presidency underscored President Al-Sisi’s dedication to addressing the outcomes of the National Dialogue, noting its broad scope and the expertise of its participants.
“My response to the recommendations of the National Dialogue reflects a sincere commitment to implementing the provisions of the Egyptian Constitution and the national strategy for human rights,” President Al-Sisi remarked.
The recommendations, presented to the President on Monday, followed extensive discussions held during the National Dialogue’s sessions on human rights and public freedoms.
The sessions, which commenced on July 23, 2024, assembled a diverse array of participants, including political analysts, human rights lawyers, public officials, parliamentarians, political party representatives, leaders of human rights organisations and members of the Presidential Pardon Committee.
The Board of Trustees of the National Dialogue highlighted that pre-trial detention and criminal justice were among the primary issues addressed during both the preparatory and public sessions.
“The discussions were conducted with seriousness and transparency,” the board stated. “All opinions expressed during the sessions or submitted as proposals to the National Dialogue were incorporated into the recommendations, with no view or proposal excluded.”
A total of 24 recommendations were submitted, with 20 reaching unanimous agreement. The remaining four recommendations reflected varied opinions on their implementation.
President Al-Sisi’s directive forms part of a wider initiative to tackle human rights issues in Egypt. Pre-trial detention has long been a contentious issue between the government and human rights organisations.
The National Dialogue’s recommendations covered several key areas, including:
* Reducing the maximum duration of pre-trial detention to ensure it serves solely as a precautionary measure necessary for investigations, rather than a punitive measure.
* Effectively implementing alternative measures to pre-trial detention.
* Providing both material and non-material compensation, including redress for wrongful pre-trial detention.
* Addressing pre-trial detention in cases where multiple crimes occur simultaneously.
The recommendations, which represent the culmination of 12 hours of uninterrupted discussions and contributions from 120 speakers of varied backgrounds, aim to foster a more just and humane criminal justice system in Egypt.
For any enquiries or information, contact ask@tlr.ae or call us on +971 52 644 3004. Follow The Law Reporters on WhatsApp Channels.
A divided federal appeals court has dismissed an attempt by a former Delta Air flight attendant to hold the airline accountable after that a co-pilot drugged and sexually assaulted her in a hotel during a layover in Dallas in she alleged 2018.
In a 2-1 ruling, the Boston-based 1st US Circuit Court of Appeals decided in favour of Delta, prompting one judge to issue a sharply worded dissent, accusing the majority of being "completely wrong" and engaging in "victim-shaming" in its ruling against the woman.
Eric LeBlanc, the plaintiff's lawyer, stated that she was considering her options.
The flight attendant was appealing the dismissal of a 2020 lawsuit she filed against Delta, alleging that a co-worker raped her and that the airline had failed to properly investigate her claims and provide her with a safe workplace free from sexual harassment.
The plaintiff claimed that she had no recollection of the co-pilot being in her room and only suspected she was assaulted after noticing bruises forming on her body.
She sought medical attention in Massachusetts, completed a sexual assault kit and reported her belief that she had been assaulted on August 5 to her supervisor.
She later filed a police report, which led to an investigation by Dallas police; however, they found insufficient evidence of an offence.
The lawsuit alleged that Delta's investigation was inadequate and that the airline violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Massachusetts state law by failing to conduct a good-faith investigation into her sexual harassment claims.
However, US Circuit Judge Sandra Lynch, writing for the majority, stated that Delta had responded with a prompt investigation and that its conclusion, deeming the co-pilot’s account credible, was not unreasonable.
She noted that the co-pilot's account of the events that night had been inconsistent in several ways and that the majority ignored evidence from the woman's hospital examination, which suggested she may have been strangled that evening.
"Hers is a story of an inadequate investigation that a reasonable jury could find credible," Thompson wrote. "She should have the opportunity to present her case at trial, and the jury can then reach its verdict."
For any enquiries or information, contact ask@tlr.ae or call us on +971 52 644 3004. Follow The Law Reporters on WhatsApp Channels.
On August 22, an appeals court in Washington revived the district's lawsuit against Amazon.com Inc, ruling that the case plausibly alleges the online retailer’s pricing policies unlawfully suppress competition.
The District of Columbia (D.C.) Court of Appeals overturned a previous decision that had dismissed the lawsuit. The lawsuit accuses Amazon of harming competition by imposing restrictions on its suppliers and third-party sellers on Amazon.com.
Amazon is also currently seeking the dismissal of another case involving similar allegations made by the US Federal Trade Commission and over a dozen states.
Amazon spokesperson Tim Doyle expressed the company’s disagreement with the appeals court’s decision and stated that they look forward to demonstrating how their policies benefit consumers.
“Just like any shop owner who wouldn’t want to promote a poor deal to their customers, we don’t highlight or promote offers that are not competitively priced,” he said.
D.C. Attorney General Brian Schwalb welcomed the court’s ruling in a statement.
“We will continue fighting to end Amazon’s unfair and unlawful practices that have increased prices for District consumers and stifled innovation and choice across online retail,” he said.
The District of Columbia sued Amazon in May 2021, claiming that Amazon effectively prohibits third-party sellers from offering products at lower prices elsewhere by refusing to highlight their listings if they do so.
The lawsuit also asserts that Amazon has agreements with wholesalers guaranteeing it a minimum profit. As a result, the complaint alleges that if Amazon lowers a price to compete with another online seller, the wholesaler must compensate Amazon for the difference between the selling price and the agreed minimum.
These payments disincentivise wholesalers from lowering prices to compete, the complaint claims.
The D.C. Court of Appeals ruled that the judge who dismissed the case in May 2023 had set the bar too high, stating that the Attorney General had a plausible claim that Amazon’s practices harmed competition in the online retail marketplace.
For any enquiries or information, contact ask@tlr.ae or call us on +971 52 644 3004. Follow The Law Reporters on WhatsApp Channels.
Chinese regulators are likely to impose a six-month business suspension on a significant portion of PricewaterhouseCoopers' auditing unit in mainland China as a penalty for its work with troubled property developer Evergrande, according to sources.
The business ban is expected to target PwC Zhong Tian LLP, the registered accounting entity and main onshore arm of PwC in China, said the sources, who have knowledge of the matter but requested anonymity due to the confidential nature of the information.
The six-month suspension is anticipated to affect PwC Zhong Tian’s securities-related business, impacting the firm's work with clients including listed companies, firms preparing for IPOs and investment funds on the mainland, according to the sources.
This will be accompanied by a fine expected to be at least 400 million yuan (Dh56 million), said three of the sources. Combined with the business suspension, it would represent the most severe penalty ever imposed on a Big Four accounting firm in China, the sources added.
The PwC penalties, which are primarily managed by China's Ministry of Finance (MOF), the principal regulator of accounting firms in the country, are yet to be finalised, said one of the sources.
"Given this is an ongoing regulatory matter, it would not be appropriate to comment," a PwC spokesperson said in a statement.
PwC has been under regulatory scrutiny for its role in auditing China Evergrande, since the troubled property developer was accused in March of a $78 billion fraud. PwC audited Evergrande for almost 14 years until early 2023.
The Financial Times first reported on Thursday that PwC China anticipated a six-month business ban by Chinese authorities as early as September.
Bloomberg reported in May that the firm faces a record fine of at least 1 billion yuan (Dh140 million).
The impending PwC penalties have led to an exodus of clientele and prompted cost cuts and layoffs at the firm in recent months, sources have said, casting a shadow over the firm's prospects in the world’s second-largest economy.
As part of the penalties, PwC will be barred from signing off on certain key documents for clients in mainland China, such as results and IPO applications, as well as from performing other securities-related services, the sources said.
The business suspension could also impact PwC Zhong Tian as a whole, preventing it from taking on new state-owned or listed clients over the next three years, in accordance with Chinese regulations.
Last year, domestic regulators reiterated that state-owned firms and listed companies should be "extremely cautious" about hiring auditors that have received regulatory fines or other penalties in the past three years.
In March of last year, Deloitte's Beijing branch was fined 211.9 million yuan by Chinese authorities and its operations were suspended for three months after serious deficiencies were found in its audit of China Huarong Asset Management.
For any enquiries or information, contact ask@tlr.ae or call us on +971 52 644 3004. Follow The Law Reporters on WhatsApp Channels.
In a federal court in California, three authors have filed a class-action lawsuit against Anthropic, accusing the AI company of illegally using their books -- and hundreds of thousands of others -- to train its AI chatbot, Claude.
The lawsuit, initiated on Monday, was brought by writers Andrea Bartz, Charles Graeber and Kirk Wallace Johnson. They allege that Anthropic utilized pirated versions of their works to enhance Claude's ability to respond to user prompts.
Anthropic has acknowledged the lawsuit but has refrained from further comment, citing ongoing litigation. An attorney representing the authors has also declined to provide any details.
This lawsuit is part of a broader trend, with copyright holders from various fields -- such as visual arts, journalism, and music -- challenging tech companies over the use of their content to train generative AI models.
Previous cases have been filed against OpenAI and Meta Platforms for similar reasons.
This is the second legal action against Anthropic, following a previous suit by music publishers who claimed that the company improperly used copyrighted song lyrics in training Claude.
The authors' complaint asserts that Anthropic has built a substantial business by illegally appropriating copyrighted books, and names major investors including Amazon, Google, and former cryptocurrency magnate Sam Bankman-Fried.
The lawsuit seeks unspecified monetary damages and an injunction to prevent Anthropic from continuing to misuse the authors' works.
For any enquiries or information, contact ask@tlr.ae or call us on +971 52 644 3004. Follow The Law Reporters on WhatsApp Channels.
The American Bar Association is set to eliminate references to “race and ethnicity” from its law school diversity and inclusion rules to comply with the US Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling prohibiting colleges from considering race in admissions.
The ABA body that accredits law schools voted last week to seek public comments on a revised rule, under which schools must provide access to “all persons, including those with identities that have historically been disadvantaged or excluded from the legal profession.”
This would replace the current rule requiring schools to offer “full opportunities” for “racial and ethnic minorities” and to have a diverse student body “with respect to gender, race and ethnicity.”
Republican attorneys general from 21 states told the ABA in June that the current diversity and inclusion standard violates the court’s ruling “by explicitly requiring illegal consideration of race.”
Two weeks later, 19 Democratic attorneys general sent their own letter defending the legality of the current standard.
The ABA was already working to revise the standard when it received the conflicting letters, but the new version goes further than previous proposals by removing references to race, ethnicity, and gender, among other things.
The ABA will circulate the proposal for public comment and could approve it as early as its meeting in November. The change would then require final approval by the ABA's House of Delegates, which next meets in February.
The latest proposal shifts focus away from a “laundry list of identities” to the rule’s broader access goal, said University of Oklahoma law professor Carla Pratt, who sits on the ABA’s Council of the Section of Legal Education and Admission to the Bar.
The proposal also calls for the “diversity and inclusion” standard to be renamed the “access to legal education and the profession” standard.
The only reference to race appears in guidance clarifying that the rules do not require schools to consider race or other identity characteristics in admissions or hiring decisions.
The proposed change comes at a time when diversity and inclusion initiatives are under increasing scrutiny.
The committee that developed the new rule reviewed the Supreme Court’s ruling, anti-diversity and inclusion laws adopted by various states, as well as the various letters from state attorneys general, Pratt said.
For any enquiries or information, contact ask@tlr.ae or call us on +971 52 644 3004. Follow The Law Reporters on WhatsApp Channels.
A judge on Monday denied a bid by US President Joe Biden's son, Hunter, to dismiss a federal tax evasion case brought against him in California.
Hunter Biden was convicted in Delaware in June for lying about his illegal drug use to purchase a firearm and is scheduled to go to trial in September for the tax evasion case.
Biden, who has pleaded not guilty to the tax charges, had argued that David Weiss, the special counsel leading both prosecutions, was illegally appointed.
The president's son had relied on a federal judge's decision dismissing a criminal case accusing former President Donald Trump of illegally retaining classified documents after leaving office.
Florida-based US District Judge Aileen Cannon found the appointment of the special counsel in that case, Jack Smith, violated the US Constitution because Congress had not granted him the authority to pursue the case. Smith's office is appealing.
However, US District Judge Mark Scarsi in Los Angeles said on Monday that there was no valid basis to reconsider a prior order denying Hunter Biden's bid to have the tax evasion indictment thrown out.
"The court declines to reach the merits of the motion because there is no valid basis for reconsideration of the court’s order denying Mr. Biden's motion to dismiss," the judge wrote.
For any enquiries or information, contact ask@tlr.ae or call us on +971 52 644 3004. Follow The Law Reporters on WhatsApp Channels.
Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Jackson Walker LLP, and a former bankruptcy judge have successfully had a lawsuit dismissed that accused them of conspiring to conceal the ex-judge’s relationship with an attorney.
Chief District Judge Alia Moses of the US District Court for the Western District of Texas dismissed the case on Friday, stating that courts must “resist the temptation to bend existing frameworks to bring a vexing case to a palatable resolution.”
However, she noted that her decision was made with “consternation” and expressed dissatisfaction with the outcome.
The ruling represents a significant victory for the firms, former judge David R. Jones, and his girlfriend and former Jackson Walker partner, Elizabeth Freeman. The pair have been at the center of a scandal that has shaken the bankruptcy community since October.
Judge Moses emphasized that the dismissal does not exonerate Jones’s misconduct, pointing out that he violated judicial ethics by not recusing himself from cases where his impartiality could be reasonably questioned.
“The relationship presented a glaring appearance of impropriety,” she wrote. “Whether through hubris, greed, or profound dereliction of duty, Jones flouted these statutory and ethical requirements by presiding over dozens of cases from which he was clearly disqualified,”
Moses added. “The legal deficiencies in the plaintiff’s claims do not erase these failures.”
The lawsuit was initiated by Michael Van Deelen, a former shareholder in a contentious Chapter 11 case overseen by Jones when he served on the US Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas.
Van Deelen’s lawsuit led to the revelation of the secret romantic relationship between Jones and Freeman, who was once Jones’s clerk.
The case was dismissed against all parties, including Freeman. Judge Moses ruled that Van Deelen lacked standing to bring the claims but granted him 30 days to refile.
Failure to Disclose
Van Deelen’s lawsuit stemmed from the 2020 bankruptcy of McDermott International Inc., during which his stock in the company was wiped out. McDermott was represented by Kirkland and Jackson Walker in its bankruptcy, with Jones presiding over the case.
In a June hearing held in Del Rio, Texas, Moses stated that Jones should have disqualified himself from any case involving Freeman. Jones argued that he had judicial immunity from the lawsuit.
Van Deelen first brought the civil suit against Jones in October, accusing him of concealing his relationship with Freeman and co-owning a home with her while making rulings and approving fees in cases involving her firm. Jones eventually admitted to the relationship and resigned.
Jones, who was based in Houston, once handled more large Chapter 11 cases than any other bankruptcy judge in the United States.
In January, Van Deelen expanded his suit to include Freeman, Kirkland, and Jackson Walker, alleging they failed to disclose the relationship as part of a scheme to secure favorable bankruptcy rulings.
He claimed that this lack of disclosure constituted bankruptcy fraud, honest services fraud, mail and wire fraud, and obstruction of justice under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organisations Act (RICO).
Van Deelen accused Jackson Walker and Kirkland, the world’s largest law firm by revenue, of submitting “misleading and dishonest” court records without disclosing the relationship.
Kirkland frequently partnered with Texas-based Jackson Walker to represent large bankrupt companies in Jones’s courtroom.
Freeman argued that her “close personal relationship” with Jones had no bearing on the damages Van Deelen claimed to have suffered.
Kirkland maintained that it had no involvement in the conduct of Jones, Freeman, or Jackson Walker, stating it was “at worst, a bystander” in the controversy. Jackson Walker asserted that it was unaware of the full extent of the romance until after McDermott’s bankruptcy plan was confirmed.
Judge Moses rejected Kirkland’s request to sanction Van Deelen and his counsel at Bandas Law Firm, concluding that they had brought the case in good faith. Kirkland had argued that the allegations lacked a factual basis and that the firm should be penalised.
The question of who at Jackson Walker knew about the relationship and when is still being litigated in another court. Freeman left Jackson Walker in December 2022.
Moses’s ruling comes as the Justice Department’s bankruptcy monitor, the US Trustee’s office, continues its efforts to recover at least Dh13 million in fees earned by Jackson Walker in cases where the firm failed to disclose the relationship.
For any enquiries or information, contact ask@tlr.ae or call us on +971 52 644 3004. Follow The Law Reporters on WhatsApp Channels.
US Law schools will soon be required to establish “minimum learning outcomes” for every course they offer and ensure these outcomes are consistent across all sections of required subjects.
The American Bar Association’s Council of the Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar adopted a series of changes on Friday to its student learning outcomes standards, aiming to clarify law schools’ obligations.
The changes also seek to ensure greater uniformity across required courses at law schools with multiple sections, such as Contracts or Torts, which are typically taught by different professors.
The newly adopted standards also require all first-year classes to include an early assessment that provides students with feedback on their performance before the final exam. Academic support must be offered to any students who “fail to attain a satisfactory level of achievement.”
Except under “extraordinary circumstances,” 80 per cent of each first-year law student’s teachers must now be full-time faculty members, ensuring that new students are not primarily taught by adjunct instructors.
“We need to do something to make these requirements meaningful and give them teeth,” said ABA council member Daniel Thies, noting that some schools currently view the requirements as mere “busy work.”
The updated standards still require approval from the ABA’s House of Delegates, which will next convene in February. If approved, as is typically the case with revisions to law school accreditation standards, the new student learning outcomes will be implemented starting in 2026.
The ABA is responsible for accrediting law schools on behalf of the US Department of Education.
While some legal academics have welcomed the increased oversight that the revised standards impose, others argue that the changes amount to micromanagement by the ABA, which will reduce the flexibility and control law professors have over their course content.
More than a third of the nation’s law deans -- 76 in total -- submitted comments to the ABA in April opposing the changes, arguing that they “could harm legal education” by placing unnecessary burdens on schools.
The proposal is part of a broader effort by the ABA to exert more control over law schools, the deans said.
However, supporters of the new requirements stated in their public comments that students would benefit from greater course uniformity and a clearer focus on how individual classes fit into the overall curriculum.
The ABA first circulated the revised student learning outcomes in August 2023, and the proposal underwent several rounds of public comments and revisions.
For any enquiries or information, contact ask@tlr.ae or call us on +971 52 644 3004. Follow The Law Reporters on WhatsApp Channels.
In 2022, three graduate students filed a lawsuit against Harvard University, alleging mishandling of reports of sexual harassment by John Comaroff, a distinguished professor of anthropology.
The students, Margaret Czerwienski, Lilia Kilburn, and Amulya Mandava, accused Comaroff of exploiting his position of power to "exploit aspiring scholars" and claimed that the university failed to "protect students from sexual abuse."
According to the lawsuit, Comaroff, 79, “kissed and groped students without their consent” and, when confronted, “threatened to sabotage” their careers. Comaroff has denied these allegations.
Court records reveal that the case was moved to mediation late last year, culminating in a settlement this week. The terms of the settlement have not been disclosed publicly.
A court filing indicated that both the students and the university agreed to dismiss the case without costs, concluding a matter that led to student protests and prompted the university to investigate Comaroff’s conduct.
Sanford Heisler Sharp, the law firm representing the students, expressed pride in their clients' bravery in speaking out and addressing significant issues. “We are glad that our clients can now move on with their lives and careers,” the firm stated on Thursday.
The Harvard Crimson, the university’s student newspaper, reported both on the settlement and the sexual harassment allegations against Comaroff, which first surfaced in 2020.
Comaroff, who joined Harvard in 2012, was a prominent professor of African American studies and anthropology before retiring in June. In his retirement statement, Comaroff described the lawsuit against him as “meritless.”
“I was falsely accused of harassment by one Harvard student and of threatening retaliation against two others,” he said. “After a 14-month investigation, I was found not responsible for any of those accusations, except for one instance of verbal impropriety.”
The lawsuit detailed repeated instances of sexual harassment by Comaroff, particularly towards Ms Kilburn. On one occasion in 2017, Comaroff allegedly kissed Ms Kilburn without her consent when she was a prospective student.
Additionally, the lawsuit claims that Comaroff threatened to sabotage the careers of Ms Czerwienski and Ms Mandava after discovering they had informed university faculty members about his misconduct towards another student.
Despite the students’ complaints, Harvard did not launch an investigation until The Crimson published reports of Comaroff’s actions. Following these reports, Comaroff was placed on administrative leave.
Comaroff stated that the lawsuit did not influence his decision to retire but acknowledged that the allegations and the subsequent legal battle were “extremely hurtful,” given his decades of dedication to teaching and his students.
For any enquiries or information, contact ask@tlr.ae or call us on +971 52 644 3004. Follow The Law Reporters on WhatsApp Channels.
Dual Russian-American citizen Ksenia Karelina was sentenced to 12 years in prison after a Russian court found her guilty of treason for donating money to a charity supporting Ukraine.
The Los Angeles spa worker pleaded guilty at her closed trial in the Urals city of Yekaterinburg, where her case was heard by the same court and judge that convicted Wall Street Journal reporter Evan Gershkovich of espionage in July.
The court stated that investigators found that on 24 February 2022 -- the first day of Russia's invasion of Ukraine -- Karelina had "transferred funds in the interests of a Ukrainian organisation, which were subsequently used for the purchase of tactical medicine items, equipment, means of defeat and ammunition by the Armed Forces of Ukraine."
She had donated $51.80 to Razom for Ukraine, a New York-based charity that provides humanitarian aid to children and elderly people in Ukraine. The charity has denied providing any military support to Kyiv.
White House national security spokesman John Kirby called the sentencing cruel and said the United States would continue to seek consular access to her and press for her release.
"It’s nothing less than vindictive cruelty. We’re talking about 50 bucks to try to alleviate the suffering of the people in Ukraine, and to call that treason is just absolutely ridiculous," Kirby told reporters.
Christopher van Heerden, Karelina’s boyfriend, said he was "angry and sad" at the 12-year sentence and called on the US State Department to declare her "wrongfully detained," a designation that would make winning her freedom a US government priority.
"What about this is not wrongful?" said van Heerden, 36, a professional boxer from South Africa who met Karelina four years ago and planned to propose to her after she returned from visiting her family in Russia. "She’s facing 12 years in prison for a $51 donation that she made as an American citizen on American soil.
The US State Department, which advises Americans not to travel to Russia, reiterated its "strong warnings" about the dangers they face there and urged any US citizens currently in the country to leave.
In a separate development, the Moscow court service said on Thursday that another American, Joseph Tater, had been placed in pre-trial detention until October 14 on a charge of assaulting a police officer.
He is already serving a 15-day prison sentence for abusing staff in a Moscow hotel, which he denied, and could face up to five years if convicted on the assault charge.
Not in Prisoner Swap
Karelina, 33, was not included in a major prisoner swap between Russia and the West two weeks ago that freed Gershkovich and 15 others from Russian and Belarusian jails in exchange for eight prisoners held in the West.
She appeared in court in a white sweatshirt and blue jeans, sitting calmly in a glass cage.
Speaking to reporters outside the courtroom, her lawyer Mikhail Mushailov said he was working to include her in a future exchange.
"We will certainly perform legally significant actions to start the exchange procedure and finalise it as soon as possible," he said, adding that Karelina planned to appeal.
Mushailov said that while Karelina admitted she had donated the money, she "did not envision that the funds that she transferred would be used for these anti-Russian activities."
Family in Shock
Karelina was born in Russia and emigrated to the United States in 2012 via a work-study programme, receiving American citizenship in 2021. Family and friends have described her as someone who didn't much care for politics and said they were shocked by her arrest.
Problems began immediately for Karelina on her arrival in Russia to visit family at the start of the year when authorities learned she had a US passport.
Officers of the FSB security service interrogated her and took her cellphone, on which they found the 2022 donation to the charity Razom. The FSB interrogated her for up to two hours during mandatory weekly check-ins and banned her from leaving the city, according to a news report.
Three days before she was due to return to Los Angeles, Karelina was arrested on a hooliganism charge and jailed for 15 days. Just before her release, she was slapped with the state treason charge.
For any enquiries or information, contact ask@tlr.ae or call us on +971 52 644 3004. Follow The Law Reporters on WhatsApp Channels.
A 71-year-old man who spent nearly five decades in prison for a murder he did not commit is to receive a $7.15 million (S$9.35 million) settlement from the US city that convicted him.
Glynn Simmons, who is black, served more time behind bars before being exonerated than any other inmate in US history, according to The National Registry of Exonerations.
Simmons was released in 2023 after serving a total of 48 years, one month and 18 days in prison.
On August 12, councillors in Edmond, Oklahoma, voted to proceed with a settlement for Simmons to resolve claims against the city and one of the detectives who helped put him away, public records showed.
Lawyers for Simmons said the payment represented a “partial settlement” of his lawsuit “against the cities and police who falsified evidence... to frame him for murder”.
“Mr Simmons spent a tragic amount of time incarcerated for a crime he did not commit,” said lead attorney Elizabeth Wang.
“Although he will never get that time back, this settlement with Edmond will allow him to move forward while also continuing to press his claims against” Oklahoma City and a leading detective.
Simmons and another man, Don Roberts, were sentenced to death in 1975 for the murder the previous year of a 30-year-old liquor store clerk during a robbery in Edmond. Their sentences were later commuted to life in prison.
Simmons and Roberts were convicted solely on the basis of the testimony of a teenage customer who was shot in the head during the robbery, but survived.
She picked them out of a police line-up, but a subsequent investigation cast significant doubt on the reliability of her identifications.
Both men had said at trial that they were not even in Oklahoma at the time of the murder.
US District Court Judge Amy Palumbo threw out Simmons’s conviction in July 2023. He was officially declared innocent in December.
Roberts, Simmons’s co-defendant, was released from prison in 2008, according to The National Registry of Exonerations, a project run by three US universities.
For any enquiries or information, contact ask@tlr.ae or call us on +971 52 644 3004. Follow The Law Reporters on WhatsApp Channels.
It seems more trouble is brewing for Elon Musk. And, no, it’s not about his recent interview with the former president of the United States of America, Donald Trump.
The Musk-owned X, formerly known as Twitter, has been ordered to pay $600,000 to a former senior staff in the company’s Ireland-based operations. This is reportedly a record sum in award by the Workplace Relations Commision (WRC) for a case related to unfair dismissal.
The WRC was hearing a petition where it was reported that X decided that the employee, Gary Rooney, had resigned after he failed to tick a box that required him to agree to a new unspecified pay and conditions.
The response was to be registered within 24 hours to an email that Twitter’s new acquirer Elon Musk had shot to X employees in November 2022.
The court has found that the former senior employee of Twitter was dismissed unfairly after he failed to respond to the mail for Musk where the new boss asked staff to be ‘extremely hardcore’.
On November 18, 2022, Rooney, who was working with Twitter since 2013, was told that he was deemed to have resigned from the company.
In October 2022, Musk paid $44 billion to acquire the micro-blogging platform, which was later renamed as X. At the time, Rooney was serving as the director of source-to-pay, a procurement role in Twitter’s Dublin office.
Following his takeover, Musk sent a message to staff where he outlined his vision for the company.
Musk’s first email as the new chief of Twitter read, “Going forward, to build a breakthrough Twitter 2.0 and succeed in an increasingly competitive world, we will need to be extremely hardcore.”
The billionaire technocrat said that henceforth it would mean working long hours at high intensity, and that only exceptional performance will constitute a passing grade.
In the mail, the X chief asked that if the staff were sure that they want to be part of the new Twitter, they should click yes on a link below.
The mail added that the staff who failed to do so would receive three months’ severance pay. Rooney did not click ‘yes’ on the mail and three days later on November 19, 2022, he got another mail from the company asking him to acknowledge his decision to resign and accept the voluntary separation offer.
The executive was later informed that he was deemed to have resigned and his access to Twitter systems were deactivated.
After a week, Rooney mailed Twitter saying that he has not indicated to the company that he was resigning from his position and that neither has he seen any separation agreement nor accepted one.
Rooney told the court that he loved his job prior to Musk’s takeover, and that his initial reaction to the terse email was that of disbelief. He admitted that he was afraid to open it at first thinking it could be spam or malware.
During the hearing, Lauren Wegman, senior director of human resources, said that out of 270 staff, 235 had clicked yes. She added that these were not among the 140 who had been already made redundant.
The WRC’s total unfair dismissal award GBP 5,50,131 consists of Rooney’s lost pay of GBP 3,50,131 between January 2023 and May 2024 and another estimated loss of future pay of about GBP 200,000.
The award sum will be paid by Twitter International Unlimited Company (currently X) to Rooney after the WRC ruled that his dismissal was unfair.
The court’s decision was based on the finding that Twitter had wrongfully characterised Rooney’s failure to click ‘yes’ in response to an email from Musk as a resignation, leading to his unfair dismissal.
After the email in November 2022, Musk went on to fire over 6,000 employees from Twitter’s staff, which is about 80 per cent of the total workforce.
Reportedly, existing staff were forced to justify their roles and even judge if their colleagues should be retained.
For any enquiries or information, contact ask@tlr.ae or call us on +971 52 644 3004. Follow The Law Reporters on WhatsApp Channels.
US Vice President Kamala Harris' bid for the White House is receiving significant backing from Paul Weiss, a prestigious law firm with strong ties to the Democratic Party.
Favoured by Big Tech and Wall Street, employees of Paul Weiss have contributed more to Democratic candidates this election cycle than any other law firm.
A partner from the firm has also assisted Harris in preparing for debates, while Chairman Brad Karp is rallying other lawyers to support the vice president.
Last week, Karp initiated a fundraising campaign within the legal community for Harris, reaching out to nearly 300 corporate lawyers, some of whom supported her 2020 presidential campaign.
The relationship between law firms and political candidates -- particularly one like Harris, who is herself a lawyer -- is nothing new.
However, advocacy groups are concerned that funders with corporate connections could exert undue influence, potentially swaying Harris away from policies under President Joe Biden that have been met with resistance from the business community.
"There is certainly a concern that the revolving door between the Democratic Party and Big Law serves the interests not only of the politicians but also of the clients represented by these revolving-door officials," said Jeff Hauser, founder of the Revolving Door Project.
Karen Dunn, who co-leads the firm's litigation group and is part of Harris' debate preparation team, according to sources familiar with the preparations, is the lead lawyer for Alphabet's Google in an antitrust trial scheduled to begin on September 9, the day before Harris' first debate with former President Donald Trump.
Dunn has served as an associate White House counsel for then-President Barack Obama, assisting him, Harris, and Hillary Clinton in preparing for past debates. She has also represented Apple and Uber.
Paul Weiss lawyers and staff have contributed at least $1.4 million to Democrats in the 2024 election cycle, more than any other law firm tracked by OpenSecrets, a nonpartisan research group that analyses campaign finance records.
Donations from lawyers and legal industry employees during this election cycle have largely gone to Biden, whose campaign Harris took over in mid-July. The Biden campaign has received at least $14.5 million, while Trump has received at least $2.5 million, according to OpenSecrets.
Karp, who has served as the firm's chairman since 2008, was among Biden's top fundraisers in 2020, having previously raised funds for Harris during the Democratic nominating contests that Biden won. Karp's relationship with Harris spans about a decade.
He and Paul Weiss represented Citigroup in 2014 when it was among the banks being investigated by state and federal authorities -- including Harris, then California's attorney general -- over mortgage-backed securities.
For any enquiries or information, contact ask@tlr.ae or call us on +971 52 644 3004. Follow The Law Reporters on WhatsApp Channels.
Johnson & Johnson (J&J) has reportedly secured the necessary support for its proposed $6.5 billion settlement to address tens of thousands of lawsuits alleging that its baby powder and other talc products caused cancer.
Over 75 per cent of claimants have voted in favour of the settlement proposal, meeting a key threshold set by the company. This percentage was established by J&J for its third attempt at placing a subsidiary into bankruptcy protection to resolve the ongoing litigation.
J&J spokesperson Clare Boyle mentioned that the company could not comment further as the final vote tally had yet to be confirmed.
The pharmaceutical giant is currently facing lawsuits from approximately 61,000 claimants, who allege that its talc products, including baby powder, were contaminated with asbestos and caused ovarian and other cancers. J&J has consistently denied these allegations, maintaining that its products are safe.
The company set the 75 per cent vote requirement, in line with a provision in US bankruptcy law, as the benchmark for proceeding with another bankruptcy filing, which is now anticipated in the near future. The deadline for casting votes was July 26.
After being twice rebuffed by federal courts, J&J is once again attempting to end the litigation through a strategy known as the "Texas two-step" bankruptcy.
In 2021, the company created a subsidiary, now known as LLT Management, to shield itself from talc-related lawsuits. However, previous bankruptcy attempts have been blocked by the courts.
The "two-step" manoeuvre involves transferring its talc liabilities to a newly formed subsidiary, which then declares Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The objective is to use the bankruptcy process to consolidate all claims into a single settlement without requiring J&J itself to file for bankruptcy.
However, the company needs 75 per cent of claimants to approve the plan before the subsidiary can ask a bankruptcy judge to impose the deal on all claimants.
Bankruptcy judges have the authority to enforce global settlements that permanently halt all related lawsuits and prevent new ones from being filed.
Outside of bankruptcy, any settlement J&J reaches with some claimants would leave room for holdouts or future plaintiffs to continue suing, exposing the company to potential multibillion-pound verdicts -- one of the key reasons for pursuing the "two-step" strategy.
J&J's bankruptcy strategy still faces significant legal challenges. Recently, the US Supreme Court issued a ruling in Purdue Pharma's bankruptcy case, narrowing the ability of courts to halt lawsuits against individuals and companies, like J&J, that are not themselves bankrupt, without the consent of the claimants.
However, J&J has stated that the Purdue ruling does not impact its settlement proposal, as US bankruptcy law includes specific legal protections for asbestos defendants who have not filed for bankruptcy.
J&J argues that it qualifies for these protections because the lawsuits generally allege that the talc used in its products was mined from deposits that also contained asbestos.
Some legal experts, however, question whether J&J truly qualifies for these protections, which were originally designed to encourage settlement payments by insurers with indirect liability for asbestos-related claims.
Moreover, the company’s strategy continues to face opposition from plaintiffs’ attorneys, who argue that the new settlement proposal should fail for the same reasons as the previous two attempts.
Courts previously rejected J&J’s first two talc bankruptcies because the subsidiary was not deemed to be in "financial distress," a challenge J&J must overcome in this latest bankruptcy effort.
In addition, there is proposed legislation in Congress that seeks to limit the ability of companies to shield themselves from lawsuits by placing shell companies into bankruptcy.
For any enquiries or information, contact ask@tlr.ae or call us on +971 52 644 3004. Follow The Law Reporters on WhatsApp Channels.
Katie Price has been warned by a judge that she must attend a further court hearing with "no ifs or buts" after being arrested at Heathrow Airport.
The former model, 46, was detained upon her return to the UK last Thursday evening for failing to attend a previous hearing related to her bankruptcies. She appeared at the Royal Courts of Justice after an arrest warrant was issued on July 30.
Deputy Insolvency and Companies Court Judge Daniel Schaffer scheduled a further hearing for August 27, telling Price: “You must attend on that date, no ifs or buts, no going abroad, no holidays.”
Price had previously stated she was "not running from matters" but was "away working on a documentary about corrective surgeries" during last week’s court hearing. It was reported that she had travelled to Turkey.
The former glamour model arrived on foot at the court on Friday afternoon, wearing a black head covering and bandages, surrounded by photographers.
Judge Schaffer ordered Price to give an “undertaking” to the court that she would attend the further hearing to address questions about her finances on August 27.
“If you breach the undertakings in any way, shape, or form, you will be brought back into custody,” he warned. “This is quite a serious matter.”
Price confirmed that she understood and added: “I will move my diary for it.”Price asked the judge if she could attend the next hearing via Zoom or from a side room, as she finds it "difficult in court".
However, Judge Schaffer declined the request, stating that it did "not take Einstein" to apply to attend remotely.
She also told the court that she did not have legal representation, adding: “I have tried to get legal advice but have been charged £50,000 upfront.”
Price said: “I can’t get legal aid because I earn. I don’t know what to do about this.”The hearing was held at the Rolls Building, but the media personality appeared remotely via a video link from an office of High Court enforcement staff at the Royal Courts of Justice.
She was accompanied by another woman, whom she described as an "appropriate adult".The Metropolitan Police said they had arrested a 46-year-old woman from Surrey at Heathrow at 19:45 BST on Thursday.
She was initially remanded in custody at a west London police station but was later bailed, according to the PA news agency.
Price, who was born in Brighton but lives in Surrey, was declared bankrupt in November 2019 and again in March this year. In February, she was ordered to pay 40 per cent of her monthly income from the adult entertainment website OnlyFans for the next three years in relation to her first bankruptcy.
She was declared bankrupt for a second time in March over an unpaid tax bill of more than £750,000. Previously, Price had received “very clear warnings” from a judge to attend the July 30 hearing, where she was due to face questions from barristers representing the trustee of her two bankruptcies.
For any enquiries or information, contact ask@tlr.ae or call us on +971 52 644 3004. Follow The Law Reporters on WhatsApp Channels.
A US court has directed the bankrupt cryptocurrency exchange FTX to pay £12.7 billion in compensation to its customers, according to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) on Thursday.
FTX attracted customers by creating an "illusion of being a safe and secure platform for accessing crypto markets," only to then misappropriate customer deposits for its own risky investments, stated CFTC Chairman Rostin Behnam.
The repayment order enforces a settlement between the CFTC and the bankrupt crypto exchange, which has committed to a bankruptcy liquidation aimed at reimbursing customers whose deposits were frozen during its collapse in late 2022.
FTX has assured that its customers will receive full recovery on their claims against the company, based on the value of their accounts at the time of its bankruptcy filing.
The CFTC agreement eliminates a potential obstacle to this repayment, ensuring that the government's lawsuit against FTX will not diminish the funds available to its customers. The CFTC has agreed to refrain from collecting any payment from FTX until all customers are fully repaid, with interest.
As part of the settlement, FTX is required to pay £8.7 billion in restitution and £4 billion in disgorgement, the latter of which will be used to further compensate victims for losses incurred during the exchange's collapse.
FTX founder Sam Bankman-Fried was sentenced in March to 25 years in prison for misappropriating £8 billion from customers. He has since appealed the conviction.
FTX has utilised its bankruptcy proceedings to reach settlements with US regulators and former business partners and to sell assets acquired with misappropriated customer funds, including real estate and investments in cryptocurrency and other technology companies.
FTX is currently seeking votes on its bankruptcy proposal but is facing opposition from some customers who feel short-changed by the decision to repay them based on much lower cryptocurrency prices from November 2022.
Votes are due on August 16, and FTX intends to seek final approval of its wind-down plan on October 7.
For any enquiries or information, contact ask@tlr.ae or call us on +971 52 644 3004. Follow The Law Reporters on WhatsApp Channels.
US Defence Secretary Lloyd Austin declared that the alleged mastermind of the September 11, 2001 attacks, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, along with other key defendants, should face trial, asserting that the families of the victims and the American public deserve justice.
The statement follows a contentious decision to scrap plea deals that had been in the works for the suspects.On July 31, plea agreements were announced for Mohammed, Walid bin Attash and Mustafa al-Hawsawi, three of the main defendants in the 9/11 attacks.
According to a report by the New York Times, these deals involved the defendants pleading guilty to conspiracy in exchange for life sentences, thereby avoiding trials that could result in their execution.
The proposed agreements quickly incited anger among many relatives of the 9/11 victims and drew sharp criticism from leading Republican politicians.
In response to the backlash, Defence Secretary Austin cancelled the plea deals just two days later. During a news conference held in Annapolis, Austin expressed the need for transparency and accountability in the legal process.
"The families of the victims, our service members and the American public deserve the opportunity to see military commission trials carried out in this case," he stated.
The legal proceedings against the 9/11 defendants have been mired in pre-trial maneuvers for years, with significant delays and complications.
The defendants have been held at the Guantanamo Bay military base in Cuba, where the protracted legal process has led to widespread frustration and calls for swifter justice.
One of the central issues in the legal battles has been whether the defendants could receive a fair trial after having been subjected to extensive torture by the CIA in the years following the 9/11 attacks.
This controversial aspect of the case has complicated the legal process, as defence attorneys argue that the torture compromised the integrity of any evidence obtained. The plea agreements, had they been accepted, would have circumvented this thorny issue.
Families of the 9/11 victims have expressed mixed reactions to the plea deals and their subsequent cancellation.
Some relatives believe that accepting the plea bargains would have provided a measure of closure and avoided the prolonged legal battles.
Others, however, feel strongly that the defendants should face trial and potentially the death penalty for their roles in the attacks that killed nearly 3,000 people.
As the debate continues, the Department of Defense is preparing to move forward with military commission trials for the 9/11 defendants.
For any enquiries or information, contact ask@tlr.ae or call us on +971 52 644 3004. Follow The Law Reporters on WhatsApp Channels.
Raja Salameh, the brother of Lebanon's former central bank governor Riad Salameh, is under investigation in France as part of a corruption probe into the alleged embezzlement of over $330 million from the bank.
Following his hearing in Paris last week, Raja Salameh faces charges including criminal conspiracy, embezzlement of public funds, aggravated breach of trust, corruption and organised money laundering, as reported by AFP.
He is suspected of assisting Riad Salameh in embezzling more than $330 million via a slush fund at the central bank, which was reportedly used to purchase properties in Europe and the US.
Both brothers have denied the accusations.
“It is a significant but expected development. The evasion ends here,” said William Bourdon, one of the lawyers representing the Sherpa association and the Collective Association of Victims of Fraudulent and Criminal Practices in Lebanon as civil parties in the case.
“The judicial puzzle involving a massive diversion of public resources by a family clan and its allies is nearing resolution.”
In February, Raja's son, Emile Salameh, was charged in France with criminal conspiracy, money laundering and receiving stolen goods following his interrogation by a financial investigating judge.
Through financial arrangements facilitated by his father, Emile Salameh is suspected of having acquired two apartments in Paris and villas in Lebanon.
Raja Salameh’s property holdings in France and the US, which are suspected to have been bought with illicit funds, and on suspicious transfers between Raja and Emile Salameh.
Since 2021, French authorities, along with several other EU countries, have been investigating money laundering linked to Lebanon's central bank chief from 1993 to 2023.
In May 2023, France issued an arrest warrant for Riad Salameh following a hearing in Paris. Raja Salameh had failed to appear at his hearing in France in April of the same year, citing medical reasons.
France has also placed other suspects under formal investigation, including Riad Salameh’s partner Anna Kosakova, Lebanese banker and former minister Marwan Kheireddine, senior BDL adviser Marianne Hoayek and Antoine Gholam, manager of Lebanese auditing firm BDO Semaan.
“Raja Salameh answered all questions posed by the investigating magistrates, aiming to establish the truth,” his lawyer Karim Beylouni told AFP.
“Raja Salameh denies any wrongdoing, including involvement in the alleged misappropriation of public funds. He is determined to clear his name and that of his family,” he added.
For any enquiries or information, contact ask@tlr.ae or call us on +971 52 644 3004. Follow The Law Reporters on WhatsApp Channels.
Pop star Justin Timberlake had his driving licence suspended during a court hearing for drink-driving charges.
The hearing, which took place on August 6, 2024 at a Los Angeles County courthouse, saw the star's legal team presenting their case but ultimately failing to prevent the suspension.
The incident leading to the drink-driving charge occurred in the early hours of July 22, 2024.
Timberlake was reportedly stopped by Los Angeles police officers after they observed erratic driving behaviour.
According to the police report, Timberlake was seen swerving between lanes and exhibited signs of intoxication when pulled over. Subsequent breathalyser tests revealed a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) above the legal limit.
During the hearing, Timberlake's solicitor argued that the singer had been attending a private event and had only consumed a small amount of alcohol.The defence claimed that Timberlake was not impaired and that the breathalyser results might have been influenced by other factors.
However, the prosecution presented strong evidence, including the arresting officer's testimony and video footage from the police car’s dash cam, which showed Timberlake's impaired driving.
In a statement released through his publicist, Timberlake expressed remorse for his actions and acknowledged the seriousness of the incident. "I deeply regret my behaviour and take full responsibility for my actions. I understand the consequences and am committed to making amends," the statement read.
Timberlake also emphasised his commitment to raising awareness about the dangers of drink-driving.
The news of Timberlake's licence suspension has generated significant media attention and public discourse. Fans and industry colleagues have expressed a mixture of disappointment and support for the star.
Fellow artists and celebrities took to social media, urging fans to remember the importance of safe and responsible behaviour.
While the licence suspension marks a challenging period for Timberlake, legal experts suggest that it serves as a crucial reminder of the legal and societal implications of driving under the influence.
Timberlake's legal team has indicated that they will comply with all court orders and focus on his rehabilitation.
For any enquiries or information, contact ask@tlr.ae or call us on +971 52 644 3004. Follow The Law Reporters on WhatsApp Channels.
A US judge ruled that Google breached antitrust laws by spending billions of dollars to establish an illegal monopoly and become the world’s default search engine.
This marks the first significant victory for federal authorities challenging Big Tech's market dominance.
The ruling opens the door for a second trial to determine potential remedies, which could include a breakup of Google’s parent company, Alphabet. Such a move would significantly alter the online advertising landscape that Google has long dominated.
It also signals a green light for aggressive US antitrust enforcement against Big Tech, a sector that has faced criticism from across the political spectrum.
"The court reaches the following conclusion: Google is a monopolist, and it has acted as one to maintain its monopoly," wrote US District Judge Amit Mehta in Washington, D.C.
Google controls approximately 90% of the online search market and 95% on smartphones.
The "remedy" phase could be protracted, followed by potential appeals to the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and the US Supreme Court. The legal proceedings could extend into next year or even 2026.
Alphabet has announced plans to appeal Mehta’s ruling. "This decision acknowledges that Google provides the best search engine but concludes that we shouldn’t be allowed to make it easily accessible," Google said in a statement.
US Attorney General Merrick Garland described the ruling as "a historic win for the American people," adding that "no company -- no matter how large or influential -- is above the law."
White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre stated that the "pro-competition ruling is a victory for the American people," adding that "Americans deserve an internet that is free, fair, and open to competition."
Billions Paid
Mehta noted that Google had paid $26.3 billion in 2021 alone to ensure its search engine was the default on smartphones and browsers, thus maintaining its dominant market share.
"The default is extremely valuable real estate," Mehta wrote. "Even if a new entrant were well-positioned to bid for the default when an agreement expires, such a company could compete only if it were prepared to pay partners billions of dollars in revenue share and compensate them for any revenue shortfalls resulting from the change."
He added: “Google, of course, recognises that losing defaults would dramatically impact its bottom line. For instance, Google has projected that losing the Safari default would lead to a significant drop in queries and billions of dollars in lost revenue.”
This ruling is the first major decision in a series of cases addressing alleged monopolies within Big Tech. This case, filed during the Trump administration, was heard by a judge from September to November of the previous year.
"A forced divestiture of the search business would separate Alphabet from its largest source of revenue. Even losing its capacity to secure exclusive default agreements could be detrimental to Google," said eMarketer senior analyst Evelyn Mitchell-Wolf, who noted that a protracted legal process would delay any immediate effects for consumers.
In the past four years, federal antitrust regulators have also sued Meta Platforms, Amazon.com and Apple, alleging that these companies have unlawfully maintained monopolies.These cases all began under the administration of former President Donald Trump.
Senator Amy Klobuchar, a Democrat who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee’s antitrust subcommittee, stated that the fact the case has spanned different administrations shows strong bipartisan support for antitrust enforcement.
"It's a huge victory for the American people that antitrust enforcement is alive and well when it comes to competition," she said. "Google is a rampant monopolist."
When the Google search case was filed in 2020, it was the first time in a generation that the US government had accused a major corporation of an illegal monopoly.
Microsoft settled with the Justice Department in 2004 over claims that it had forced its Internet Explorer web browser on Windows users.
For any enquiries or information, contact ask@tlr.ae or call us on +971 52 644 3004. Follow The Law Reporters on WhatsApp Channels
A French magistrate has ordered film director Christophe Ruggia to stand trial on charges of sexually assaulting an actor when she was a minor, sources close to the case said.
The trial at the Paris criminal court, set for December 9 and 10, follows allegations that Ruggia sexually assaulted actor Adele Haenel in the early 2000s when he was in his mid to late 30s and she was under 15.
The investigating magistrate said Haenel's accusations were "precise and consistent" and that she had suffered psychological consequences from the assaults.
Potentially aggravating circumstances were the considerable age difference between Ruggia and Haenel, and the "psychological control" that the director progressively exercised over the young actor thanks to his position of authority.
Ruggia has denied all the charges against him, although the director admits to committing "errors".
The Ruggia case is one of a string of revelations that have prompted new questions about sexual violence in French society, particularly in the artistic world. Ruggia, now 59, was initially charged in 2020 over the accusations.
Haenel, now 35, lodged a complaint against Ruggia after accusing him of subjecting her to "constant sexual harassment" from the age of 12 to 15, including "forced kisses on the neck" and touching. Ruggia directed her in the 2002 movie "The Devils", her first film role.
The accusations stunned the French film industry, which has been slower than Hollywood to react to the #MeToo movement turning the spotlight on sexual abuse in the arts.
But in recent months police and investigating magistrates have turned their attention to a string of allegations.
Cinema legend Gerard Depardieu, 75, put his career on hold last autumn after accusations against him, all of which he denies. He is to stand trial in October accused of sexually assaulting two women, and also risks a second trial after he was charged in 2020 with the rape of an actor in 2018 when she was 22 and anorexic.
And actor Judith Godreche said earlier this year two French directors -- Benoit Jacquot and Jacques Doillon -- had sexually abused her when she was a teenager.
Godreche accused Jacquot of raping her during a six-year relationship that started when she was 14 and he was 25 years her senior. She accused Doillon of sexually abusing her when she was 15.
In July, a magistrate charged 77-year-old Benoît Jacquot with allegedly raping two actors.
Additionally, 80-year-old Jacques Doillon was detained in July for questioning over accusations of sexually abusing much younger actresses who appeared in his films. Both Jacquot and Doillon have denied the charges.
And the head of France's top cinema institution, Dominique Boutonnat, stepped down in July after he was convicted of sexually assaulting his godson in 2020.
For any enquiries or information, contact ask@tlr.ae or call us on +971 52 644 3004. Follow The Law Reporters on WhatsApp Channels
Hunter Biden, the son of President Joe Biden, is scheduled to be sentenced on November 13 after being convicted on gun charges.
The case, which has drawn significant public and media attention due to Biden's familial ties, centres around his purchase and possession of a firearm while being a user of illegal drugs.
Hunter Biden, 54, was charged with making a false statement when purchasing a firearm in 2018. According to the indictment, Biden falsely claimed on a federal form that he was not using any illegal drugs at the time of the purchase, despite struggling with addiction.
The charges further allege that he possessed the firearm while being an unlawful user of and addicted to a controlled substance.
The legal process began with an investigation by federal authorities into Biden's actions. In October 2023, Biden reached a plea agreement with prosecutors, admitting guilt to the charges of making false statements and illegal possession of a firearm.
This agreement was intended to avoid a lengthy trial, but it collapsed in early 2024 due to disagreements over the terms of the plea deal.
Subsequently, the case proceeded to trial, where Biden was found guilty by a jury in June 2024. His conviction has led to a scheduled sentencing date of November 13, 2024.
Legal experts have weighed in on the potential outcomes of Biden’s sentencing. Under federal law, making false statements on a gun purchase form and illegal possession of a firearm by a drug user are serious offences.
Biden faces the possibility of several years in prison, although the exact length of the sentence will depend on various factors, including any mitigating circumstances and the judge's discretion.
The case has generated polarised reactions across the political spectrum. Critics of President Biden have seized upon the charges as evidence of alleged wrongdoing within the Biden family, calling for greater scrutiny and accountability.
Supporters argue that Hunter Biden’s case is a personal matter and stress the importance of due process. President Joe Biden has maintained a careful distance from the legal proceedings, emphasising his trust in the judicial system.
In a brief statement, the President expressed his continued support for his son, acknowledging Hunter’s struggles with addiction while underscoring the need for legal accountability.
Hunter Biden’s conviction and upcoming sentencing have also reignited discussions on gun control and drug addiction in the United States.
Advocates for stricter gun laws point to the case as an example of the need for more rigorous background checks and regulations to prevent illegal firearm possession.
Meanwhile, addiction specialists and mental health advocates highlight the importance of providing support and treatment for individuals struggling with substance abuse.
As the sentencing date approaches, the nation watches closely to see the outcome of this high-profile case. The sentencing on November 13 will mark a significant moment in Hunter Biden’s legal journey and will likely have lasting implications for the Biden family and the broader political landscape.
Hunter Biden’s legal team has indicated that they may appeal the conviction, depending on the sentence imposed. The developments in the coming months will be crucial in determining the final resolution of this case.
For any enquiries or information, contact ask@tlr.ae or call us on +971 52 644 3004. Follow The Law Reporters on WhatsApp Channels
Defence Secretary Lloyd Austin abruptly revoked a plea deal for the alleged mastermind of the September 11, 2001 terror attacks and his co-conspirators, and he relieved the overseer in charge after years of effort to reach an agreement to bring the cases to a close.
In a surprise memo quietly released on Friday night, Austin said the responsibility for such a significant decision “should rest with me.” Only two days earlier, the Pentagon announced that it had reached a plea deal with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, more commonly known as KSM, and two other defendants – Walid Bin ‘Attash, and Hawsawi – accused of plotting the attacks.
The memo, addressed to Susan Escallier, the convening authority for military commissions who runs the military courts at Guantanamo Bay, said the defence secretary would immediately withdraw her authority in the cases and “reserve such authority to (himself).”
Austin said that he was withdrawing from the three pre-trial agreements, which had taken the death penalty off the table for the three men.
Prosecutors in the case had been discussing the possibility of a plea deal for more than two years, which would have avoided a lengthy trial complicated by questions over the admissibility of evidence obtained during torture.
After beginning negotiations in March 2022, the pre-trial agreement announced on Wednesday would have seen KSM and his co-defendants sentenced to prison in exchange for pleading guilty to all charges, including conspiracy and the murder of the 2,976 people listed in the charging sheet.
In 2008, Mohammed was charged with a list of crimes including conspiracy, murder in violation of the law of war, attacking civilians, attacking civilian objects, intentionally causing serious bodily injury, destruction of property in violation of the law of war, and terrorism and material support of terrorism. The US had said it would seek the death penalty for Mohammed.
But the military trial against Mohammed and his alleged co-conspirators was delayed for years as the US tried to determine how to handle the issue of torture used against Mohammed and others at secret CIA prisons in the 2000s.
The trial was set to begin on January 11, 2021, but delays brought about by the resignation of two judges and the coronavirus pandemic pushed the date back.
The plea deal announcement prompted a fierce backlash, including from both sides of the political aisle and some groups representing 9/11 victims who have pushed for the US government to pursue the death penalty for the worst attacks on US soil since Pearl Harbor.
“While we acknowledge the decision to avoid the death penalty, our primary concern remains access to these individuals for information,” said Brett Eagleson, the president of 9/11 Justice, an organisation that represents 9/11 survivors and family members of victims, in a statement following the initial announcement.
“These plea deals should not perpetuate a system of closed-door agreements, where crucial information is hidden without giving the families of the victims the chance to learn the full truth.”
Democratic Senator Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, who has represented families of 9/11 victims, told CNN on Thursday he had concerns about the plea deal and said the administration owed Americans an explanation for the agreement.
“I think there are interests here that may not have been represented as fairly and aggressively as they should have been,” he said, adding, “When we fight terrorists, and we have them in custody, we need to hold them accountable with the kinds of penalties that really do justice to the victims.”
Senator Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican, warned that the plea deal “sends a horribly bad signal at a very dangerous time.”
“The world is on fire, terrorism is rampant, and we give a plea deal to the mastermind of 9/11? That just encourages more attacks,” he said.
The US government’s efforts to bring the 9/11 defendants and others held at the Guantanamo prison to justice has been marred by legal and political obstacles spanning administrations since George W. Bush.
In 2009, then Attorney General Eric Holder announced plans to charge the men in US criminal court in Manhattan, prompting backlash from some lower Manhattan residents and Republicans who insisted military tribunals were more appropriate.
The transfer was part of President Barack Obama’s goal of closing the Guantanamo prison, a campaign promise.
Republicans passed laws blocking the prison closure and Holder dropped plans for a trial. US criminal courts for decades have dealt with high-profile terror trials, including with death sentences, which Holder had authorised. But political opposition relegated the case to the Guantanamo tribunals, mired in delays.
Holder reminded critics on Friday that his 2009 plan would likely have resolved the case long ago.
“The people responsible for structuring this awful deal did the best they could,” Holder said on X, invoking Daniel Pearl, the Wall Street Journal reporter killed by terrorists in Pakistan.
“They were dealt a bad hand by political hacks and ideologues who lost faith in our justice system. KSM would be just a memory if my 2009 decision had been followed.”
For any enquiries or information, contact ask@tlr.ae or call us on +971 52 644 3004. Follow The Law Reporters on WhatsApp Channels
The US Justice Department filed a lawsuit against TikTok and parent company ByteDance for failing to protect children's privacy on the social media app as the Biden administration continues its crackdown on the social media site.
The government said TikTok violated the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act that requires services aimed at children to obtain parental consent to collect personal information from users under age 13.
The Chinese-owned short-video platform boasts around 170 million US users, and is currently fighting a new law that would force ByteDance to divest TikTok's US assets by January 19 or face a ban.
The lawsuit is the latest US action against TikTok and its Chinese parent over fears the company improperly collects vast amounts of data on Americans for the Chinese government, while influencing content in a way that could harm Americans.
The suit, which was joined by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), said it was aimed at putting an end "to TikTok's unlawful massive-scale invasions of children's privacy."
Representative Frank Pallone, the top Democrat on the Energy and Commerce Committee, said the suit "underscores the importance of divesting TikTok from Chinese Communist Party control. We simply cannot continue to allow our adversaries to harvest vast troves of Americans’ sensitive data."
TikTok said Friday it disagrees "with these allegations, many of which relate to past events and practices that are factually inaccurate or have been addressed. We are proud of our efforts to protect children, and we will continue to update and improve the platform."
The DOJ said TikTok knowingly permitted children to create regular TikTok accounts, and then create and share short-form videos and messages with adults and others on the regular TikTok platform. TikTok collected personal information from these children without obtaining consent from their parents.
The US alleges that for years millions of American children under 13 have been using TikTok and the site "has been collecting and retaining children's personal information."
"TikTok knowingly and repeatedly violated kids’ privacy, threatening the safety of millions of children across the country,” said FTC Chair Lina Khan, whose agency in June referred the case to the Justice Department.
The FTC is seeking penalties of up to $51,744 per violation per day from TikTok for improperly collecting data, which could theoretically total billions of dollars if TikTok were found liable.
Reuters in 2020 first reported the FTC and Justice Department were looking into allegations the popular social media app failed to live up to a 2019 agreement aimed at protecting children's privacy.
The company last year faced fines from the European Union and U.K. over its handling of children's data.
On Tuesday, US Senate passed a bill that would extend COPPA to cover teenagers up to age 17, ban targeted advertising to kids and teens, and give parents and kids the option to delete their information from social media platforms.
The bill would need to pass in the Republican-controlled House, currently on recess until September, to become law.
For any enquiries or information, contact ask@tlr.ae or call us on +971 52 644 3004. Follow The Law Reporters on WhatsApp Channels
In a significant legal victory for the National Football League (NFL), a federal judge in California has overturned a $4.7 billion verdict against the league.
The lawsuit alleged that the NFL overcharged subscribers for its 'Sunday Ticket' game broadcasts for over a decade.
The ruling, issued on Thursday by US District Judge Philip Gutierrez in Los Angeles, followed the NFL's arguments that the verdict was unjustified and the result of a "runaway" jury.
The 'Sunday Ticket' package, offered by DirecTV, is the sole broadcast option for NFL fans who want to watch out-of-market games.
Subscribers accused the NFL of inflating 'Sunday Ticket' prices to limit subscriptions and protect distribution rights. They claimed this practice resulted in exorbitant charges for consumers over the years.
The plaintiffs, comprising individual subscribers and commercial establishments, argued that the exclusive deal between the NFL and DirecTV allowed for the artificial inflation of prices.
In June 2023, a Los Angeles federal jury sided with the plaintiffs, awarding $4.7 billion in damages.
The jury's calculation was based on 24.1 million residential subscriptions over a 12-year class period, amounting to $4.6 billion, and 506,780 commercial subscriptions for bars and restaurants, totalling $96.9 million.
In his 16-page order, Judge Gutierrez vacated the jury's decision, stating that the damages verdict was "clearly not supported by the evidence." He dismissed testimony from two key witnesses for the subscribers, further weakening the plaintiffs' case.
Gutierrez's ruling highlighted several crucial points:
Lack of Supporting Evidence: The judge emphasised that the jury's verdict lacked substantial evidence and did not justify the massive damages awarded.
NFL’s Media Distribution Model: The court acknowledged the NFL's argument that its media distribution model offers fans various options to follow their favourite teams, countering the plaintiffs' claims of restricted availability and inflated prices.
Questionable Jury Reasoning: Gutierrez noted that the NFL had described the damages amount as "nonsensical," arguing that the jury's conclusions were based on a misunderstanding of the evidence presented.
The NFL welcomed the judge's ruling, expressing satisfaction with the decision. In a statement, the league said, "We believe that the NFL’s media distribution model provides our fans with an array of options to follow the game they love."
The plaintiffs' lawyers did not immediately respond to requests for comment. However, the plaintiffs had previously countered that the NFL's arguments were based on "pure conjecture" and lacked evidence that the jury relied on inadmissible information.
The court's ruling grants judgment as a matter of law to the NFL, effectively overturning the $4.7 billion verdict. However, the plaintiffs have the option to appeal the decision to the San Francisco-based 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals.
Legal experts suggest that this ruling could have far-reaching implications for future antitrust litigation involving major sports leagues and their broadcasting agreements. The case underscores the complexities of antitrust law and the challenges plaintiffs face in proving monopolistic practices in court.
For now, the NFL and DirecTV can continue their business operations without the looming threat of a multi-billion-pound verdict. The outcome of any potential appeals will be closely watched by both legal analysts and sports industry stakeholders.
For any enquiries or information, contact ask@tlr.ae or call us on +971 52 644 3004. Follow The Law Reporters on WhatsApp Channels
The man accused of masterminding the Sept 11 attacks, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and two of his accomplices, held at the US military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, have agreed to plead guilty, the Pentagon said.
A US official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the plea deals almost certainly involved guilty pleas in exchange for taking the death penalty off the table.
The official said the terms of the agreement had not been publicly disclosed but acknowledged a plea for a life sentence was possible.
Mohammed is the most well-known inmate at the detention facility in Guantanamo Bay, which was set up in 2002 by then-US President George W. Bush to house foreign militant suspects following the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States.
Its population grew to a peak of about 800 inmates before it started to shrink. There are 30 inmates today.
Mohammed is accused of masterminding the plot to fly hijacked commercial passenger aircraft into the World Trade Centre in New York City and into the Pentagon.
The 9/11 attacks, as they're known, killed nearly 3,000 people and plunged the United States into what would become a two-decade-long war in Afghanistan.
His interrogations have long been the subject of scrutiny. A 2014 Senate Intelligence Committee report on the CIA's use of waterboarding and other "enhanced interrogation techniques" said that Mohammed had been waterboarded at least 183 times.
Plea deals were also reached by two other detainees: Walid Muhammad Salih Mubarak Bin 'Attash and Mustafa Ahmed Adam al Hawsawi, according to a Pentagon statement.
The three men were initially charged jointly and arraigned on June 5, 2008, and then were again charged jointly and arraigned a second time on May 5, 2012, the Pentagon statement said.
US Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell condemned the plea deals.
"The only thing worse than negotiating with terrorists is negotiating with them after they are in custody," McConnell said in a statement, accusing the administration of Democratic President Joe Biden of "cowardice in the face of terror."
For any enquiries or information, contact ask@tlr.ae or call us on +971 52 644 3004. Follow The Law Reporters on WhatsApp Channels
A suspended director of the troubled Indian educational tech firm Byju’s must pay $10,000 a day until he helps locate $533 million that his company is accused of hiding from US lenders, a judge said.
Riju Ravindran, brother of Byju’s founder, has been at the center of a nearly two-year-old fight over the missing cash, which lenders say should be returned to them after the company defaulted.
Ravindran is one of three directors of Think & Learn Pvt. -- which operates the Byju’s brand -- who were recently replaced by a trustee as part of an involuntary bankruptcy case filed in India, according to US court documents.
After imposing the sanctions on Ravindran, US Bankruptcy Judge Brendan Shannon also rejected a request to put the US debt fight on hold so Ravindran and the company could find new lawyers.
American lawyers for Ravindran and Byju’s units want to quit defending their clients in the bankruptcy dispute, blaming “an irreparable breakdown.”
Instead, Shannon ruled that Ravindran’s lawyers must continue to represent their clients until at least a hearing next month, when all sides return to US Bankruptcy Court in Wilmington, Delaware, where much of the conflict has been playing out.
The moves are the latest twists to an usual saga involving a company that was once a symbol of India’s rising technology sector. Within 18 months of borrowing $1.2 billion from US lenders in 2022, Byju’s missed key financial reporting deadlines, had their offices raided by Indian regulators and was accused by American lenders of defaulting.
Since then, the company has been accused of fraudulently transferring $533 million away from a shell company set up in the US that was responsible for paying the debt. Byju’s has defended its actions by claiming it has been targeted by predatory lenders.
The missing money is at the heart of a dispute between lenders owed $1.2 billion and the startup founded by entrepreneur Byju Raveendran.
The missing cash belongs to a bankrupt shell company, Byju’s Alpha Inc., which is affiliated with Think & Learn and was taken over by the lenders after their loan defaulted.
The US bankruptcy case is BYJU’s Alpha Inc., 24-10140, US Bankruptcy Court District of Delaware (Wilmington).
For any enquiries or information, contact ask@tlr.ae or call us on +971 52 644 3004. Follow The Law Reporters on WhatsApp Channels
Amazon is responsible under federal safety law for hazardous products sold on its platform by third-party sellers and shipped by the company, a US government agency said.
In a unanimous vote, the Consumer Product Safety Commission said it determined that the e-commerce company was a “distributor” of faulty items sold on its site and packed and shipped through its fulfillment service.
That means the company is on the hook, legally, for the recalls of more than 400,000 products, including hairdryers and defective carbon monoxide detectors, the agency said.
It ordered Amazon to come up with a system for notifying customers who purchased faulty items and to remove the products from circulation by offering incentives for their return or destruction.
Amazon said it planned to appeal the decision in court.
Overall, Amazon accounts for roughly 40% of e-commerce sales in the US, according to the market research firm Emarketer. The company sells many items directly to consumers and also partners with nearly two million third-party sellers, who drive the majority of the sales on the platform.
The online retailer has fought the “distributor” label since 2021, when it was sued by the Consumer Product Safety Commission for allegedly distributing hazardous items.
When Amazon was notified about the deficient products three years ago, the company “swiftly” notified customers, told them to stop using the items and issued refunds, Amazon spokesperson Tim Doyle said.
But the agency said the company “did not take adequate steps to encourage” customers to return or destroy the products, leaving them at risk of injury. In the messages it sent, the company claimed the faulty products had “potential” safety issues and provided customers with Amazon.com credits rather than refunds, the agency said.
Amazon had argued before an administrative law judge and the five-person commission that it shouldn’t be classified as a distributor under the Consumer Product Safety Act.
The commission said the judge rejected the company’s argument, and Tuesday’s order was an affirmation of that decision.
For any enquiries or information, contact ask@tlr.ae or call us on +971 52 644 3004. Follow The Law Reporters on WhatsApp Channels
A US judge has ordered Wells Fargo to face a lawsuit alleging it misled shareholders by claiming a commitment to hiring diversity while conducting sham job interviews with non-white and female applicants it had no intention of hiring.
US District Judge Trina Thompson in San Francisco, who dismissed a version of the lawsuit last August, on Monday found direct and indirect evidence suggesting that the San Francisco-based bank intended to deceive shareholders about its hiring practices.
She rejected arguments that there was insufficient proof of widespread fake interviews or that top officials, including Chief Executive Charles Scharf, were unaware of it.
Shareholders have challenged 11 statements made by the bank promoting the success of a policy adopted in March 2020, which required at least 50% of candidates interviewed for jobs paying at least $100,000 to be minorities, women, or people from other disadvantaged groups.
They cited interviews with former employees, an internal whistleblower email, and the sudden retirement of a senior wealth manager who allegedly pressured the whistleblower into conducting fake interviews.
"The employee-submitted complaints, the peculiar timing of (the manager's) departure, and defendants' demonstrated focus on diversity issues support a strong inference of (fraudulent intent) that is cogent and at least as compelling as an opposing inference that defendants remained oblivious," Judge Thompson wrote.
In a statement, Wells Fargo said it would continue defending against the lawsuit, noting that the Department of Justice and the Securities and Exchange Commission had closed investigations into its hiring practices without taking action.
"Wells Fargo is deeply dedicated to diversity, equity and inclusion and does not tolerate discrimination in any part of our business," the statement added.
For any enquiries or information, contact ask@tlr.ae or call us on +971 52 644 3004. Follow The Law Reporters on WhatsApp Channels.
The US Department of Justice asked a federal appeals court to uphold an April law requiring China-based ByteDance to sell TikTok's US assets by January 19 or face a ban.
The DOJ argued in its filing that TikTok under Chinese ownership poses a serious national security threat due to its access to vast amounts of personal data on Americans, asserting that China could covertly manipulate the information that Americans consume via TikTok.
"The serious national-security threat posed by TikTok is real," the department said. "TikTok provides the Chinese government with the means to undermine US national security in two principal ways: data collection and covert content manipulation."
The Biden administration asked the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia to reject lawsuits by TikTok, its parent company ByteDance, and a group of TikTok creators seeking to block the law that could ban the app used by 170 million Americans.
TikTok has repeatedly denied it would ever share US user data with China or that it manipulates video results."The government has never provided proof of its claims, including when Congress passed this unconstitutional law.
Today, once again, the government is taking this unprecedented step while hiding behind secret information," TikTok posted on social media platform X in response to the DOJ brief.
The DOJ's filing details extensive national security concerns about ByteDance's ownership of TikTok.
"China’s long-term geopolitical strategy involves developing and pre-positioning assets that it can deploy at opportune moments," the department said.
The government acknowledged in a separate declaration that it had no information suggesting the Chinese government had gained access to the data of US TikTok users but said the risk of such a possibility was too great.
"The United States is not required to wait until its foreign adversary takes specific detrimental actions before responding to such a threat," the filing said.
Presidential Election Issue
The government also filed a classified document with the court detailing additional security concerns about ByteDance's ownership of TikTok, as well as broader declarations from the FBI, Office of the Director of National Intelligence, and DOJ's National Security Division.
ByteDance told the US government that TikTok's source code contained 2 billion lines of code, making a full review impossible. "Oracle estimated it would require three years to review this body of code," excluding additional changes, DOJ added.
Signed by President Joe Biden on April 24, the law gives ByteDance until January 19 to sell TikTok or face a ban. The White House says it wants to see Chinese-based ownership ended on national security grounds, but not a ban on TikTok.
The department rejected all the arguments raised by TikTok, including that the law violates the First Amendment free speech rights of Americans who use the short video app, saying the law addresses national security concerns, not speech, and is aimed at China's ability to exploit TikTok to access Americans' sensitive personal information.
TikTok users have "numerous other well-known platforms" such as YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, and X that they could use instead, the DOJ said.
The DOJ added that TikTok's $2 billion plan to protect US user data was insufficient, saying the company's proposed agreement was not enough in part because US officials do not trust ByteDance and there is a "lack of confidence that it had either the resources or capability to catch violations."
The appeals court will hold oral arguments on the legal challenge on September16, placing the issue of TikTok's fate into the final weeks of the November 5 presidential election.
Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has joined TikTok and said in June he would never support a TikTok ban. Vice President Kamala Harris, who is poised to become the Democratic nominee, joined TikTok this week.
The law prohibits app stores like Apple and Alphabet's Google from offering TikTok and bars internet hosting services from supporting TikTok unless it is divested by ByteDance.
Driven by concerns among US lawmakers that China could access data on Americans or spy on them with the app, Congress overwhelmingly passed the measure just weeks after it was introduced.
For any enquiries or information, contact ask@tlr.ae or call us on +971 52 644 3004. Follow The Law Reporters on WhatsApp Channels.
A US jury on Friday found that Abbott Laboratories' specialised formula for premature infants caused an Illinois girl to develop a dangerous bowel disease, ordering the healthcare company to pay £495 million in damages.
The verdict in St Louis, Missouri state court comes in the first trial against the company out of hundreds of similar claims over the formula pending in courts around the country.
Illinois resident Margo Gill, who brought the case against Abbott, alleged that the company failed to warn that its formula could cause a potentially deadly disease called necrotising enterocolitis (NEC) in premature babies.
The jury awarded her £95 million in compensatory damages and £400 million in punitive damages.
The jury's verdict was not unanimous and was supported by 9 of the 12 jurors in the case. To return a verdict in a civil case in Missouri, three-fourths of jurors must agree.
"Companies need to be honest about their products, about the good and the bad," Gill's attorney, Jack Garvey, said. "When there is a risk of using a baby formula for preterm infants, parents have a right to know what the problems are."
Abbott said it strongly disagrees with the verdict and will seek to have it overturned.
Abbott spokesman Scott Stoffel said that specialised formulas and fortifiers, like the one in this case, are among the only available options for feeding premature infants.
"Verdicts like these, where the science and opinions of healthcare professionals who spend their lives treating these babies are ignored, make it difficult to continue supplying these products indefinitely," Stoffel said.
NEC, which causes the death of bowel tissue, mostly affects premature newborns and has a fatality rate of between 15% and 40%. Gill's child, Robynn Davis, who developed NEC after being given Abbott's premature infant formula while in a neonatal intensive care unit in 2021, survived but suffered irreversible neurological damage due to her illness and will require long-term care.
Lawyers for Abbott, which makes Similac brand formula, argued during the trial that Robynn's long-term injuries were caused by trauma at birth that deprived her brain of oxygen. They said that while breast milk lowers the risk of NEC, specialised formula is sometimes necessary and life-saving for premature babies.
Nearly 1,000 lawsuits have been filed against Abbott, Enfamil formula maker Reckitt Benckiser, or both, in federal or state courts. Over 500 are centralised in an Illinois federal court, with others pending in Illinois, Missouri, and Pennsylvania.
The lawsuits claim that the companies did not warn doctors that infants receiving formula have a greater risk of NEC compared to infants who are breast-fed or given donor milk or human milk-derived formula. Reckitt, like Abbott, has denied the claims.
Like all of the lawsuits over NEC, Friday's case involves cow's milk-based formula and products for fortifying mother's milk that are specially made for infants in hospital settings, not ordinary formula available to consumers in stores.
The first lawsuit to go to trial, against Reckitt in Illinois, ended with a £60 million jury verdict in March. Reckitt is appealing that verdict and has argued that the plaintiff's case relied on unsound expert testimony.
The litigation has concerned some investors. Reckitt's share price fell about 15% after the March verdict and has not fully recovered.
The NEC Society, a patient-led non-profit organisation working to combat the disease, has criticised the lawsuits, saying that "feeding decisions should be made at patients' bedsides, not in courtrooms."
The NEC lawsuits are separate from ongoing litigation against Abbott over the shutdown of its Sturgis, Michigan, plant and subsequent recall of batches of baby formula for possible contamination, which contributed to a nationwide formula shortage in 2022. There have been no trials in those cases.
For any enquiries or information, contact ask@tlr.ae or call us on +971 52 644 3004. Follow The Law Reporters on WhatsApp Channels.
Manhattan prosecutors who secured Donald Trump's historic criminal conviction have argued that the verdict should remain in place despite the US Supreme Court's ruling that presidents cannot face criminal charges over official acts.
In a court filing dated July 24 and made public on Thursday, the prosecutors urged a judge to reject the former US president's bid to overturn the verdict in light of the ruling. They argued that the decision had no impact on their case, which centred on hush money paid to a porn star.
"The charges in this case all involve purely personal conduct, rather than official presidential acts," prosecutors from Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's office stated.
Trump, the Republican nominee in the November 5 election, was convicted on May 30 on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records to conceal his former lawyer Michael Cohen's $130,000 payment to porn star Stormy Daniels for her silence before the 2016 election regarding an alleged sexual encounter with Trump.
Trump denies any encounter with Daniels and has vowed to appeal the guilty verdict. He is the first US president, past or present, to be convicted of a crime.
Legal experts suggest that Judge Juan Merchan is unlikely to grant Trump's request to overturn the verdict, as much of the conduct in question predates Trump's 2017-2021 presidency and relates to personal matters.
However, Merchan has postponed Trump's sentencing from July 11 to September 18, less than two months before the election, to allow his lawyers the opportunity to present their case.
Two weeks ago, Trump's defence lawyers urged the judge to overturn the verdict, arguing that prosecutors relied on evidence of his official acts during the trial, which they claimed was improper given the justices' ruling.
The justices' 6-3 ruling on 1 July also stated that evidence of official acts cannot be used in a prosecution concerning private matters.
Trump's lawyers contested the introduction of evidence of Twitter posts Trump made in 2018 about Cohen, which prosecutors argued demonstrated Trump was aware that his former lawyer had paid off Daniels. Defence lawyers contended that those posts were official communications.
In their Thursday filing, prosecutors argued that Trump made the posts in his "unofficial capacity."
Trump had also objected to the testimony of two White House aides and the prosecutors' use of a financial disclosure form that referenced Trump's reimbursement to Cohen.
Prosecutors stated on Thursday that the aides testified about private matters and that the disclosure form related to Trump's private finances.
Prosecutors contended that even if Merchan finds that some of the evidence introduced at trial pertained to official acts, the verdict should stand because there was substantial other evidence of Trump's guilt.
"Harmless error cannot be a basis for overturning a verdict," prosecutors wrote.
Merchan has indicated he will rule on Trump's arguments by September 6. If the conviction is upheld, the case will proceed to sentencing. Once sentenced, Trump could formally appeal the verdict and the sentencing to a higher-level state court.
For any enquiries or information, contact ask@tlr.ae or call us on +971 52 644 3004. Follow The Law Reporters on WhatsApp Channels.
A Coinbase business in Britain has been fined for breaching a regulatory agreement to enhance its defences against financial crime, marking the first sanction of its kind in the UK cryptoassets sector.
The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) announced that CB Payments Limited (CBPL), a gateway for customers to trade cryptoassets within the global Coinbase Group, had voluntarily agreed in October 2020 to improve its financial crime controls following a visit by the regulator.
The agreement stipulated that CBPL could not accept new high-risk customers until the issues were addressed. However, the company took on or provided e-money services to 13,416 such customers, with nearly a third depositing a total of $24.9 million, the FCA said.
This money was used to execute multiple cryptoasset transactions through other Coinbase entities, totalling approximately $226 million, the regulator added, noting that repeated breaches of the voluntary agreement went undiscovered for nearly two years.
"CBPL's controls had significant weaknesses, and the FCA highlighted this, which is why the requirements were necessary. CBPL, however, repeatedly breached those requirements," Therese Chambers, Joint Executive Director of Enforcement at the FCA, said on Thursday.
CBPL will pay a £3.5 million fine after qualifying for a 30% discount by agreeing to resolve the case.
"We welcome regulation and are committed to working proactively and closely with the most sophisticated financial regulators in the world, including the FCA, to ensure we provide the most compliant, trusted, and secure platform for our customers," Coinbase said on Thursday.
Kate Gee, a crypto litigation lawyer at Signature Litigation, stated that this first-of-its-kind fine serves as a warning for firms to take financial crime controls very seriously.
"Firms that do not take sufficient measures to protect against financial crime and who fail to comply with operational restrictions will face scrutiny and enforcement action," Gee said.
For any enquiries or information, contact ask@tlr.ae or call us on +971 52 644 3004. Follow The Law Reporters on WhatsApp Channels.
The popular social media platform TikTok has been fined £12.7 million by the UK's Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) for failing to protect children's privacy and inadequately reporting child safety data.
The ICO's investigation found that TikTok had allowed millions of children under the age of 13 to use the platform without parental consent, in breach of UK data protection laws.
The fine follows a comprehensive investigation by the ICO, which revealed that TikTok not only failed to obtain proper consent from parents or guardians for users under 13 but also lacked transparency in informing users about how their data would be utilised.
This deficiency in transparency and age verification raised significant concerns about the safety and privacy of young users on the platform.
TikTok, owned by the Chinese company ByteDance, has faced global scrutiny over its data privacy practices, particularly regarding younger users.In response to the fine, TikTok expressed disappointment but recognised the need for improvement.
A spokesperson for the company said, "We are committed to ensuring our platform is safe for all users, especially our younger audience. We have made significant changes over the past year to enhance age verification and parental controls."
The ICO's decision comes amid increasing regulatory scrutiny of social media platforms worldwide, with governments and regulators calling for stricter measures to protect user data, especially for vulnerable groups such as children.
The UK government is currently working on the Online Safety Bill, which aims to establish clear legal responsibilities for digital platforms to safeguard users from harmful content.
As digital platforms continue to expand their reach, ensuring the safety and privacy of all users, particularly children, remains a top priority for regulators and lawmakers globally.
The fine against TikTok serves as a stark reminder of the need for robust data protection measures in the digital age.
For any enquiries or information, contact ask@tlr.ae or call us on +971 52 644 3004. Follow The Law Reporters on WhatsApp Channels.
Violence against women and girls in England and Wales has been declared a "national emergency," with nearly 3,000 offences recorded daily, according to a new report.
The study, commissioned by two law enforcement bodies, estimates that at least one in every 12 women will be a victim each year, with the actual number expected to be significantly higher.
"Violence against women and girls is a national emergency," said Senior Police Chief Maggie Blyth in comments accompanying the report.
The study revealed that over one million violent crimes against women and girls were recorded by police in 2022-2023. These crimes accounted for just under a fifth of all police-recorded crime, excluding fraud, in England and Wales between April 2022 and March 2023.
The report noted a 37% increase in violence against women and girls between 2018-2019 and the previous year, with domestic abuse being one of the biggest demands on policing.
The study also found that one in 20 adults in England and Wales, or 2.3 million people, will perpetrate crimes against women and girls annually.
"These are cautious estimates, as much crime goes unreported and in policing, we often only see the tip of the iceberg," Blyth said.
She warned that violence against women in both countries had "reached epidemic levels" and called for government intervention in the "overwhelmed" criminal justice system.
Meanwhile, offences related to child sexual abuse and exploitation surged by 435% between 2013 and 2022, from just over 20,000 to nearly 107,000. Offenders are getting younger, with the average age of a suspect now 15.
The report also highlighted that stalking and harassment account for 85% of online-related offences.
Britain's Home Office declared violence against women and girls a national threat to public safety in February last year.
Over the past year, more than 4,500 new officers have been trained to investigate rape and serious sexual offences.
The report detailed a 38% increase in charges for adult rape from the year ending December 2022 to the year ending December 2023.
For any enquiries or information, contact ask@tlr.ae or call us on +971 52 644 3004. Follow The Law Reporters on WhatsApp Channels.
Attorneys who reached a $490 million securities class action settlement with Apple earlier this year are hoping to walk away with a quarter of that amount in legal fees, arguing that the risks they took warrant a hefty reward.
Lawyers at Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd and Labaton Keller Sucharow this week asked a federal judge, opens new tab in Oakland, California to award them $122.5 million, or about $3,100 an hour for the 65 lawyers and staffers who together devoted 39,500 hours to the case, according to the firms' filings.
Multiplying those hours by the professionals' hourly rates would yield an award of about $27.8 million, they said, arguing that their much larger request is appropriate given their adversary was "the largest – and arguably one of the most powerful – companies on the planet."
The settlement resolves allegations that Apple CEO Tim Cook defrauded shareholders by concealing falling demand for iPhones in China.
When Apple reduced its quarterly revenue forecast by as much as $9 billion in 2019, it was the first time since the iPhone's launch that Apple had cut its revenue forecast. Apple denied the claims.
The firms' $122.5 million request matches the benchmark of 25% of a class action settlement fund for attorney fee awards adopted by federal courts in California and elsewhere in the 9th Circuit.
But courts there have sometimes pushed back at the 25% standard in so-called megafund cases where settlements exceed $100 million.
In 2015, for instance, a San Jose federal judge slashed an attorney fee request of 19.54% to around 10% in a $415 million settlement that ended a high-profile lawsuit accusing Apple, Google and two other Silicon Valley companies of conspiring to hold down salaries.
"This 25% benchmark is clearly too high in some cases," said University of Michigan law professor Adam Pritchard, who studies securities class actions. Pritchard co-authored a 2023 study that estimated that Robbins Geller earned more than $1 billion in fees from securities class actions from 2005 to 2018.
Robbins Geller and Labaton said Apple's all-cash $490 million settlement is the third-largest deal of its kind in the Northern District of California, and one of the 40 largest settlements ever in a securities class action.
US District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers is weighing the fee bid as she decides whether to grant final approval to the settlement. She is no stranger to major litigation against Apple, and in 2022 she approved a $26 million fee award in an antitrust class action related to the company's App Store that settled for $100 million.
Rogers is also currently weighing a $217 million fee request from Boies Schiller Flexner, Morgan & Morgan and Susman Godfrey after the firms reached a non-monetary settlement with Google in a consumer privacy case. Google has opposed the fee award.
Responses to the fee request in the Apple securities case are due July 29, and a hearing is scheduled for September 17.
Auction Averted
On the other side of the country, a dispute over a much smaller legal fee briefly caught the attention of South Florida's art scene when it threatened to put a prominent dealer's collection of Latin American and other artwork on the auction block.
A Miami judge cancelled the July 22 auction after the dealer, Gary Nader, put up a half-million-dollar bond to cover legal fees he was ordered to pay his ex-lawyers at Fort Lauderdale firm Stok Kon + Braverman.
Stok Kon's Robert Stok told Reuters he believed the auction could have forced Nader to sell a "large inventory of artwork" worth as much as $100 million.
A lawyer for Nader said his client owed Stok Kon nothing and accused the firm of "extremely aggressive collection tactics."
Stok Kon sued Nader in 2022, alleging he owed more than $216,000 in unpaid fees stemming from the firm's legal work on a failed museum development project.
A judge ruled in April that Nader must pay Stok Kon its fees plus interest, and last month ordered that Nader's sole membership interest in his company, Gary Nader & Company LLC, be auctioned off to satisfy the judgment.
The company's holdings include a building in Miami’s Wynwood Art District that houses Nader's gallery and museum.
The museum on its website said it has 30,000 square feet of exhibition space showcasing art from Latin America and the Caribbean, including a collection of work from Columbian artist Fernando Botero. Nader has appealed the court's judgment.
For any enquiries or information, contact ask@tlr.ae or call us on +971 52 644 3004. Follow The Law Reporters on WhatsApp Channels.
Three private equity firms are competing in the final stages of an auction for school operator Nord Anglia, which is set to be one of the largest European deals of the year.
Bain Capital, Permira, and Veritas Capital are among those through to the last round of the sale process, Financial Times reported, quoting sources familiar with the matter.
Final bids for a majority stake in the London-based group are expected later this month, with the business potentially valued at up to £12bn. Other bidders may still emerge, one source noted.
Nord Anglia’s current owners -- Swedish private equity group EQT and the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board -- are expected to retain a stake in any agreement. The Singaporean sovereign wealth fund GIC is also likely to co-invest alongside a successful bidder, the sources added.
The deal is among the largest potential transactions in Europe this year, alongside Abu Dhabi’s National Oil Company’s potential €14.4bn deal for German chemical group Covestro, and would-be buyers face complications due to the deal’s multibillion-pound size.
Larger private equity takeovers have encountered challenges recently as higher interest rates increase the cost of financing.
Another factor is how the new potential owner might realise a return from the deal, given the business is now so large it would likely need to return to the public markets via an initial public offering, one source said.
Although the European market for new listings has had its strongest start to the year since the Covid-19 pandemic, it remains volatile.
EQT and CPPIB might still consider an IPO for Nord Anglia as a contingency plan if a sale does not proceed, the sources added.
Nord Anglia operates 87 international day and boarding schools across 33 countries, including China, India, the Middle East and the Americas. Over the past two years, the company has added 10 schools mainly through acquisitions.
Some of its schools include Oxford International College in the UK and the exclusive Avenues in New York. In the UK, where Nord Anglia has a limited number of schools, the incoming Labour government has previously proposed removing tax benefits for private schools and imposing business rates on them.
More than 85,000 students up to the age of 18 are enrolled in its schools, alongside 11,000 teachers and thousands more support staff.
EQT’s Baring Private Equity Asia and CPPIB acquired Nord Anglia in 2017, delisting the company from the New York Stock Exchange for £3.4bn, including debt.
Private equity firms face a dual challenge: they are under pressure from their investors to divest assets to return cash, while also needing to make investments from their new buyout funds in a slower market. Education has been a popular sector for investment in private markets.
A consortium led by the Canadian investment group Brookfield agreed last month to invest in the Dubai-based education company GEMS.
Meanwhile, French investor Wendel earlier this month acquired a 50 per cent stake in the European primary and secondary school group Globeducate for €625mn, buying part of current shareholder Providence Equity Partners’ interest.
For any enquiries or information, contact ask@tlr.ae or call us on +971 52 644 3004. Follow The Law Reporters on WhatsApp Channels.
Joe Biden dropped out of the US presidential election and endorsed Vice President Kamala Harris as the Democratic Party's new nominee, in a political earthquake that upends an already extraordinary 2024 race for the White House.
Biden, 81, said he was acting in the "best interest of my party and the country" by bowing to weeks of pressure after a disastrous June debate against Donald Trump stoked worries about his age and mental fitness.
The stunning move throws Democrats into fresh turmoil ahead of the November 5 election. But it could also reenergize the demoralized party, with Harris swiftly confirming her goal to become America's first woman president and to "defeat Donald Trump." Biden said he would "speak to the nation later this week".
Trump reacted with a stream of posts on his Truth Social network, saying that because Biden is not "fit to run" for president, he is also not "fit to serve."
However, the dramatic shift will wrong-foot Republicans, whose campaign was solely focused on Biden and will now instead feature 78-year-old Trump -- the oldest presidential nominee in US history -- up against a far younger opponent.
The move also transforms what had been a highly unpopular and dragging Trump-Biden rematch into one of the most compelling presidential campaigns in modern American politics.
Biden's withdrawal had been widely expected at some point. The announcement finally came with no warning as he recovered from Covid at his Delaware beach house.
In a letter posted on X, Biden said it had been the "greatest honor of my life" to be president. He said he would address the nation later this week. The White House later said he had no public events scheduled for Monday.
"While it has been my intention to seek reelection, I believe it is in the best interest of my party and the country for me to stand down and focus solely on fulfilling my duties as President for the remainder of my term," he wrote.
Shortly after, he offered his "full support and endorsement" for Harris, with his campaign filing official notice to change its name to "Harris for President."
Endorsements began streaming in for Harris almost immediately from Democratic big shots as well as those seen as potential rivals for the nomination, such as California Governor Gavin Newsom.
The Democratic fundraising group ActBlue meanwhile reported that Harris received $27.5 million in small-donor contributions over the course of just five hours.
Party Convention in Chicago
Democrats must now scramble to confirm a new candidate at their party convention in Chicago on August 19. Harris, the first Black and South Asian woman vice president in US history, praised Biden for his "selfless and patriotic act" and vowed to "earn and win" the nomination.
Still highly influential former Democratic president Barack Obama cautioned that "uncharted waters" lie ahead. Biden's decision came after a period of enforced isolation, with only a few family members and aides around him to consult at his Rehoboth Beach home, as he nursed a Covid infection.
First Lady Jill Biden reacted by simply reposting his statement, along with two hearts. In a clear sign of how Republicans will try to frame Harris's image, Trump's new running mate JD Vance underlined that she had been "every step of the way" with Biden, "the worst president in my lifetime."
'Mental Decline'
Biden's decision to exit caps a tense and chaotic period in the US election, with Trump having survived an assassination attempt at a campaign rally on July 13, and Democrats tearing themselves apart for weeks over whether Biden should quit. The Democrat is the first president in US history to drop out so late in an election race.
Biden spent more than three weeks resisting calls to step down following the shock of the June 27 debate, during which he often lost his train of thought and stood with mouth agape.
Harris meanwhile struggled to make an impact in her first years in the White House, but performed strongly on the campaign trail on key issues such as abortion.
In recent weeks, the Biden campaign has reportedly been quietly carrying out a head-to-head survey of voters measuring how the former California prosecutor matched up against convicted felon Trump.
Biden took office in January 2021 pledging to heal the "soul of America" after four turbulent years under Trump and the shock of the January 6, 2021 Capitol assault by his supporters.
Overcoming a reputation for verbal flubs, Obama's former vice president gave strong backing to Ukraine's battle against Russia's 2022 invasion, pushed through a massive Covid recovery plan and historic green industry subsidies.
But he faced criticism over the catastrophic US withdrawal from Afghanistan, high inflation, and his support for Israel's war in Gaza -- while concerns over his age only mounted.
For any enquiries or information, contact ask@tlr.ae or call us on +971 52 644 3004. Follow The Law Reporters on WhatsApp Channels.
The United Nations' highest court said on Friday that Israel's occupation of Palestinian territories and settlements there is illegal and should be withdrawn as soon as possible, in its strongest findings to date on the Israel-Palestinian conflict.
The advisory opinion by judges at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), known as the World Court, is not binding but carries weight under international law and may weaken support for Israel.
"Israeli settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, and the regime associated with them, have been established and are being maintained in violation of international law," President Nawaf Salam said, reading the findings of a 15-judge panel.
The court said Israel's obligations include paying restitution for harm and "the evacuation of all settlers from existing settlements".
In a swift reaction, Israel's foreign ministry rejected the opinion as "fundamentally wrong" and one-sided, and repeated its stance that a political settlement in the region can only be reached through negotiations.
"The Jewish nation cannot be an occupier in its own land," Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's office said in a statement.
The opinion also angered West Bank settlers as well as politicians such as Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, whose nationalist religious party is close to the settler movement and who himself lives in a West Bank settlement.
"The answer to The Hague - Sovereignty now," he said in a post on the social media platform X, in an apparent appeal to formally annex the West Bank.
Israel Gantz, head of the Binyamin Regional Council, one of the largest settler councils, said the ICJ opinion was "contrary to the Bible, morality, and international law".
The ICJ opinion also found that the UN Security Council, the General Assembly, and all states have an obligation not to recognise the occupation as legal nor "render aid or assistance" towards maintaining Israel's presence in the occupied territories.
The United States is Israel's biggest military ally and supporter. The Palestinian Foreign Ministry called the opinion "historic" and urged states to adhere to it.
"No aid. No assistance. No complicity. No money, no arms, no trade...no actions of any kind to support Israel's illegal occupation," Palestinian envoy Riyad al-Maliki said outside the court in The Hague.
The case stems from a 2022 request for a legal opinion from the UN General Assembly, predating the war in Gaza that began in October.
Israel captured the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and East Jerusalem - areas of historic Palestine which the Palestinians want for a state - in the 1967 Middle East war and has since built settlements in the West Bank and steadily expanded them.
Israeli leaders argue the territories are not occupied in legal terms because they are on disputed lands, but the United Nations and most of the international community regard them as occupied territory.
In February, more than 50 states presented their views before the court, with Palestinian representatives asking the court to find that Israel must withdraw from all the occupied areas and dismantle illegal settlements.
Israel did not participate in the oral hearings but filed a written statement telling the court that issuing an advisory opinion would be "harmful" to attempts to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
The majority of states participating asked the court to find the occupation illegal, while a handful, including Canada and Britain, argued it should refuse to give an advisory opinion.
The United States had asked the court not to order the unconditional withdrawal of Israeli forces from the Palestinian territories. The US position was that the court should issue no decision that could hurt negotiations toward a two-state solution on a "land for peace" principle.
In 2004 the ICJ gave an advisory ruling that an Israeli separation barrier around most of the West Bank was illegal and Israeli settlements were established in breach of international law. Israel dismissed that ruling.
For any enquiries or information, contact ask@tlr.ae or call us on +971 52 644 3004. Follow The Law Reporters on WhatsApp Channels.
World
The General Court of the European Union (GC) on Wednesday ruled that ByteDance, the parent company of TikTok, qualifies as a gatekeeper under the Digital Markets Act (DMA), which subjects the company to stricter regulations aimed at ensuring fair competition and user rights.
The Commission assigned ByteDance gatekeeper status in September 2023 under the DMA. Gatekeeper status under the DMA imposes additional obligations on companies with “a significant impact on their relevant digital market” to uphold European competition law.
The DMA can be seen as an extension of Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), which prohibits the abuse of dominance in market competition. Other companies that have been assigned gatekeeper status include Alphabet (Google), Amazon, Apple, Meta, and Microsoft.
The General Court based its decision on several factors, including ByteDance’s significant market influence through its popular platform TikTok, control over critical digital infrastructure, and ability to set rules for other market participants.
The court noted that ByteDance’s substantial user base and extensive data collection capabilities position it as a critical player in the digital market.
As a designated gatekeeper, ByteDance will now be required to adhere to stringent regulations under the DMA. These include ensuring data portability, maintaining interoperability with third-party services, providing business users access to performance data, and avoiding practices that favour its services over competitors. Failure to comply could result in significant fines.
In rejecting ByteDance’s argument that their impact on the European internal market was limited, using TikTok’s European user base as evidence of financial capacity, the GC also ruled that ByteDance’s assertion of an infringement on their right to defence and principle of equal treatment was unfounded.
In response to the ruling, a company spokesperson told Reuters, “We believe that TikTok operates in a highly competitive environment and that our practices align with EU regulations.” ByteDance has not announced plans to appeal the decision.
For any enquiries or information, contact ask@tlr.ae or call us on +971 52 644 3004. Follow The Law Reporters on WhatsApp Channels.
A Florida judge appointed by Donald Trump has dismissed the criminal case against him on charges of mishandling top-secret documents, in a stunning victory for the former president who immediately called for an end to his other pending cases.
The staggering decision effectively removes a major legal threat for Trump, who faces multiple criminal cases as he tries to regain the White House from US President Joe Biden.
It will add to his seemingly unstoppable momentum on the first day of the Republican National Convention, where he is set to become the party's official nominee for president just days after surviving an assassination attempt.
In her ruling, Federal Judge Aileen Cannon said that Special Counsel Jack Smith was unlawfully appointed and that the case should therefore be dismissed.
Smith was appointed as special counsel in 2022 by Biden-appointee Attorney General Merrick Garland. He was tasked with overseeing the investigations into Trump's handling of classified documents after he left office, as well as his efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election results.
The Trump-appointed judge made her ruling after lawyers for the 78-year-old argued for a partial stay of proceedings to allow for an assessment of a new Supreme Court ruling that a former president has broad immunity from prosecution.
"Former President Trump's Motion to Dismiss Indictment Based on the Unlawful Appointment and Funding of Special Counsel Jack Smith is granted," Cannon wrote in her order.
In a 93-page opinion, Cannon said Smith's appointment and funding usurped the role of Congress, echoing a recent opinion put forward by Clarence Thomas, one of the conservatives who dominate the Supreme Court.
"The Court is convinced that Special Counsel Smith's prosecution of this action breaches two structural cornerstones of our constitutional scheme -- the role of Congress in the appointment of constitutional officers, and the role of Congress in authorising expenditures by law," she concluded. "The clerk is directed to close this case," the judge wrote.
Cannon did not make a ruling on the merits of the case. But the fact she came to a decision after being accused by critics of slow-walking the case, opens the door for prosecutors to appeal and potentially have it re-heard by another judge.
The decision followed Trump's momentous win earlier this month at the Supreme Court that gives former presidents broad immunity for their official acts while in office.
This decision has helped Trump in his quest to delay the trials he faces until after the November election.
These include charges in Washington and Georgia related to efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election he lost to Democrat Joe Biden.
"This dismissal of the Lawless Indictment in Florida should be just the first step, followed quickly by the dismissal of ALL the Witch Hunts," Trump said on his Truth Social platform.
In the Florida case, Trump was facing 31 counts of "wilful retention of national defence information," each punishable by up to 10 years in prison.
He also faced charges of conspiracy to obstruct justice and making false statements. Trump allegedly kept classified documents which included records from the Pentagon and CIA -- unsecured at his Mar-a-Lago home and thwarted efforts to retrieve them. The material included secret nuclear and defence documents, according to prosecutors.
Republicans contended the prosecution was unfair and selective, after a federal prosecutor in February opted not to pursue charges against Biden, who kept some classified material at his home after leaving the vice presidency in 2017."
For any enquiries or information, contact ask@tlr.ae or call us on +971 52 644 3004. Follow The Law Reporters on WhatsApp Channels.
A New Mexico judge dismissed involuntary manslaughter charges against Alec Baldwin on Friday, agreeing with his lawyers that prosecutors and police withheld evidence on the source of the live round that killed "Rust" cinematographer Halyna Hutchins in 2021.
Three days after Baldwin's trial began, New Mexico district court Judge Mary Marlowe Sommer threw out the case as the actors' lawyers alleged a "cover up" by prosecutors who have been plagued by missteps since first filing charges 18 months ago.
Breaking down in tears, the multiple Emmy-award winning actor hugged his wife Hilaria Baldwin as other family members wept in the public gallery.
Baldwin faced an unprecedented criminal prosecution as an actor for an on-set shooting and his lawyers said prosecutors dragged him through a "cesspool of improprieties." Baldwin and his family left court without speaking to reporters.
"The state's withholding of the evidence was wilful and deliberate," Sommer said in delivering her decision. "Dismissal with prejudice is warranted to ensure the integrity of the judicial system and the efficient administration of justice."
The actor's lawyer Alex Spiro told the court that the Santa Fe sheriff's office took possession of live rounds in March as evidence in the case but failed to list them in the "Rust" investigation file or disclose their existence to defense lawyers.
"The real reason you didn't inventory that evidence is because it could have jeopardized the law enforcement case," Spiro told Santa Fe County Sheriff's Office Corporal Alexandria Hancock, the lead investigator on the "Rust" case, in cross examination on Friday.
Erlinda Johnson, one of the state prosecutors on the case, resigned on Friday, the fourth prosecutor to quit or be forced to step down.
"I did not intend to mislead the court," lead state prosecutor Kari Morrissey said after taking the unusual step of defending herself from the witness stand. "My understanding of what was dropped off at the sheriff's office is on this computer screen and it looks absolutely nothing like the live rounds from the set of Rust."
Many legal analysts said the case should never have been brought to trial by the Santa Fe County District Attorney's Office. "The prosecution felt it had to cheat to get the result it wanted," said legal analyst Duncan Levin, a New York defense attorney. "This is the worst of our system on display."
Hutchins died in Hollywood's first on-set shooting in nearly 30 years when Baldwin was directed to point a revolver at her as she set up a camera shot during filming southwest of Santa Fe. The weapon fired a .45 caliber round inadvertently loaded by the movie's armorer Hannah Gutierrez.
The Colt .45 rounds at the center of the dismissal were handed into the sheriff's office on March 6 by Troy Teske, a friend of Thell Reed, the stepfather of Gutierrez, on the same day she was convicted of involuntary manslaughter for Hutchins' death.
A sheriff's office crime scene technician, Marissa Poppel, testified on Thursday that the rounds did not match those collected on the set of Rust which were sent for FBI testing.
But when defense lawyers inspected them they found some had brass casings with the “Starline Brass” logo and silver, nickel primers, just like the six live rounds found on the set of Rust. Others looked like inert dummy rounds taken into evidence on the set.
“That turned out to be completely false, didn’t it?” Baldwin's lawyer Spiro asked Corporal Hancock.
“You’re correct,” she said.
Judge Sommer asked Hancock who had decided to put Teske’s ammunition into a separate case file number.
Hancock said it was the decision of her supervisor, prosecutors and herself.
“Ms. Morrissey was part of that conversation?” asked Sommer, growing visibly angry.
“Yes,” replied Hancock.
Spiro also questioned Morrissey about her attitude toward his client, saying witnesses had reported she had characterized him with expletives and said she would try to teach him a lesson.
"I never said to witnesses that I would teach him a lesson," she said.
Prosecutors had alleged Baldwin played a role in the death of Hutchins because he handled the gun irresponsibly.
His lawyers said Baldwin was failed by Gutierrez and others responsible for safety on the set, and law enforcement agents were more interested in prosecuting their client than finding the source of the live round that killed Hutchins.
Defense lawyers alleged prop supplier Seth Kenney supplied the live rounds to "Rust," an accusation he denied in testimony on Friday.
It remains to be seen whether the dismissal of Baldwin's case would affect Gutierrez's conviction, which is under appeal.
For any enquiries or information, contact ask@tlr.ae or call us on +971 52 644 3004. Follow The Law Reporters on WhatsApp Channels.
From conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East to salt mining in Brazil -- courts in the Netherlands have become Ground Zero in a global legal battlefield with far-reaching implications.
A strong legal tradition, home to many multinationals and international organisations and global ease of reach: the country has several trump cards making it the preferred legal arbiter of choice.
Three months into 2024, the city of The Hague's two most influential international courts have already cast headline-grabbing rulings on Russia's invasion of Ukraine and the spiralling conflict in Israel and the Gaza Strip.
In early March, the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued arrest warrants for two high-ranking Russian commanders, while in January the UN's top International Court of Justice (ICJ) handed down emergency measures telling Israel to boost aid in Gaza and to protect its population.
At the same time, a local civil court handed down a landmark judgement halting the supply of F-35 fighter jet parts from the Netherlands to Israel.
Victims of devastating salt mining in the Brazilian city of Maceio are suing petrochemical giant Braskem for compensation before a Rotterdam court -- one of many international compensation suits launched in recent years.
An Amsterdam court in February quashed an appeal by Russia in a record $50-billion case involving a compensation claim by former shareholders of the dismantled oil giant Yukos.
Recent years have also seen Dutch courts hand down rulings in major climate cases including one won by NGO group Milieudefensie in 2021.
In that case, the court ordered petrochemical giant Shell to curtail greenhouse emissions in what is considered the first major climate change ruling against a corporation.
Legal Hotbed
So why is the Netherlands a hotbed of international litigation? "I do think it is potentially easier to launch lawsuits in the Netherlands," said Cecily Rose, assistant professor of public international law at Leiden University.
"The legal bar for bringing collective actions is relatively low in the Netherlands, and this does have the effect of making it easier for NGOs to pursue public interest litigation in Dutch courts," she told AFP.
"Cases with international implications regularly reach the Dutch courts partly because the Netherlands is home to transnational companies with a global reach, such as Shell, Unilever or Heineken," added Leon Castellanos-Jankiewicz, senior researcher at the Asser Institute for International and European Law.
"These multinationals are subject to Dutch law and therefore the Dutch courts have jurisdiction over these entities and their dealings," he told AFP.
The country also has a highly skilled legal workforce and a strong belief in upholding the law. "The Netherlands has a tradition of placing strong emphasis on the development of international law," Castellanos-Jankiewicz said.
"Promoting the development of the international legal order is a permanent objective of Dutch foreign policy," he said.
Coupled with good infrastructure with global reach and the perception that the Netherlands was a "neutral ground" made it an appealing choice for parties seeking an impartial resolution, experts said.
Peace and Justice
The Netherlands also hosted several international courts and tribunals as well as agencies such as the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons and Europol, "embedding these organisations in the Dutch legal landscape," legal experts said.
Nestled on the Dutch coast between Amsterdam and Rotterdam, The Hague has always been seen as the "City of Peace and Justice" with its first international arbitral body, the Permanent Court of Arbitration, established in 1899.
Still existing today, the PCA laid the groundwork for later bodies established in the city, including the ICJ after World War II and the ICC, which opened its doors in 2002.
Other international courts, including the now defunct Yugoslav war crimes tribunal (ICTY) and the Kosovo Specialist Chambers also found a home here.
"Although the cases in these jurisdictions are completely independent from the Dutch courts as they belong to the United Nations system, they amplify many issues of global concern," Castellanos-Jankiewicz said.
For any enquiries or information, contact ask@tlr.ae or call us on +971 52 644 3004. Follow The Law Reporters on WhatsApp Channels.
A New Mexico judge decided that actor Alec Baldwin’s role as co-producer is not relevant to the involuntary manslaughter trial over a fatal shooting on the set of the western film "Rust."
Judge Mary Marlowe Sommer ruled that evidence about Baldwin’s secondary role in the movie would not be allowed at trial, siding with defence attorneys.
“I’m having real difficulty with the state’s position that they want to show that as a producer he didn’t follow guidelines and therefore as an actor, Mr Baldwin did all of these things wrong that resulted in the death of Ms Hutchins because as a producer he allowed these things to happen,” Marlowe Sommer said.
“I’m denying evidence of his status as a producer.”
Special prosecutor Erlinda Johnson argued unsuccessfully to allow evidence that Baldwin’s “role as a producer made him keenly aware of his responsibilities on set” for safety.
“It goes to Mr Baldwin’s knowledge, knowing that his conduct on set was negligent,” she said. Baldwin sat between his lead attorneys, Luke Nikas and Alex Spiro, with a yellow legal pad on the table in front of him.
Last month, Baldwin’s lawyers pushed for the case to be dismissed, arguing that FBI testing of the firearm had damaged the weapon before lawyers could examine it for possible modifications.
The defence team alleged the gun was damaged at the time of the incident and accused prosecutors of withholding potentially “exculpatory evidence.”
Sommer rejected the dismissal request, saying Baldwin’s lawyers had not proved prosecutors acted in bad faith. But the judge also said prosecutors would have to disclose to the jury the “destructive nature of the firearm testing, the resulting loss and its relevance and import.”
Defence attorneys have asked the judge to exclude consideration of Baldwin’s secondary role as a co-producer on "Rust," arguing it’s irrelevant to allegations of negligence and might confuse jurors.
Prosecutors disagree, saying it was likely Baldwin’s imposing role as a producer that emboldened him to act recklessly and disregard the safety of others in allegedly flouting gun-safety protocols.
The defence team and prosecutors disagree about Baldwin’s contractual authority as a producer over crew members who dealt with weapons and safety.
Prosecutors argue that a state workplace safety investigation, which found serious violations on set, was incomplete, untrustworthy, and should be prohibited from the trial.
Baldwin is charged with a single felony count of involuntary manslaughter, punishable by up to 18 months in prison if he is convicted.
Hannah Gutierrez-Reed, the armourer on set, was convicted of involuntary manslaughter in cinematographer Halyna Hutchins’s death and sentenced to 18 months in prison. She is appealing the conviction.
In October 2021, Baldwin was rehearsing a cross-draw manoeuvre with the revolver when the gun went off, killing Hutchins and wounding director Joel Souza.
Baldwin has pleaded not guilty and claims the gun fired accidentally after he followed instructions to point it towards Hutchins, who was behind the camera. Unaware the gun contained a live round, Baldwin said he pulled back the hammer – not the trigger – and it fired.
Baldwin’s attorneys also want to bar discussion at trial of actor Brandon Lee’s death from a fatal shot to the abdomen while filming a scene from "The Crow" in 1993. In that instance, a makeshift bullet was mistakenly left in a gun from a previous scene and struck Lee while filming a scene that called for using blank rounds.
Prosecutors have agreed not to elicit testimony about "The Crow," but also contend that Baldwin knew about safety risks posed by guns – even when live rounds are not present. Attorneys for Baldwin argue that it was inconceivable that live rounds would wind up on set.
Prosecutors want to exclude a letter signed by crew members that disputes the characterisations of the "Rust" set as chaotic or dangerous prior to the fatal shooting.
Prosecutors also want to exclude from trial the conclusions of the safety investigation into the fatal shooting that place much of the blame on assistant director Dave Halls. Halls has pleaded no contest to negligent use of a firearm and may be called to testify at Baldwin’s trial.
"Rust" Movie Productions paid a $100,000 fine to resolve violations of state safety regulations that were characterised as “serious” but not willful, under a 2023 settlement agreement. Prosecutors say conclusions of the investigation are easily contradicted by more reliable information.
Baldwin’s attorneys say the report cannot be ruled out as evidence and that state occupational safety officer Lorenzo Montoya should be allowed to testify at trial.
Another pre-trial motion might defuse snipping between the prosecution and defense teams. Prosecutors want the judge to preclude accusations of “prosecutorial misconduct” and “personal attacks”.
Prosecutors also want the judge to exclude evidence and arguments designed to garner sympathy for Baldwin, including indications of remorse or the impact of events on his family, arguing that it has no bearing on determining guilt.
For any enquiries or information, contact ask@tlr.ae or call us on +971 52 644 3004. Follow The Law Reporters on WhatsApp Channels.
X Corp. and owner Elon Musk defeated one of the lawsuits filed over the firing of thousands of employees after the billionaire’s takeover of the social media platform in October 2022.
The suit alleged that X, formerly known as Twitter, and Musk owed at least $500 million in severance pay to about 6,000 laid-off employees under provisions of the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), which sets rules for benefit plans.
The two plaintiffs, the company’s former global head of compensation and benefits and another ex-manager, said workers got severance equal to only one month’s pay.
But US District Judge Trina Thompson in San Francisco ruled that the employees’ claims weren’t covered under ERISA because the company told employees after Musk’s takeover that any who were let go would only get cash payouts.
Several similar cases filed by former Twitter employees and executives are moving through the courts.
The case is McMillian v. Musk, 23-cv-03461, US District Court, Northern District of California (San Francisco).
For any enquiries or information, contact ask@tlr.ae or call us on +971 52 644 3004. Follow The Law Reporters on WhatsApp Channels.
Boeing has agreed to plead guilty to a criminal fraud conspiracy charge and pay a fine of $243.6 million to resolve a US Justice Department investigation into two 737 MAX fatal crashes, the government said in a court filing.
The plea deal, which requires a judge's approval, would brand the planemaker a convicted felon in connection with crashes in Indonesia and Ethiopia over a five-month period in 2018 and 2019 that killed 346 people.
The settlement drew swift criticism from victims' families who wanted Boeing to face a trial and suffer harsher financial consequences.
The Justice Department's (DOJ) push to charge Boeing has deepened an ongoing crisis engulfing Boeing since a separate January in-flight blowout exposed continuing safety and quality issues at the planemaker.
A guilty plea potentially threatens the company's ability to secure lucrative government contracts with the likes of the US Defense Department and NASA, although it could seek waivers.
Boeing became exposed to criminal prosecution after the Justice Department in May found the company violated a 2021 settlement involving the fatal crashes.
Still, the plea spares Boeing a contentious trial that could have exposed the company's decisions ahead of the fatal crashes to even greater public scrutiny. It would also make it easier for the planemaker, which will have a new CEO later this year, to try to move forward as it seeks approval for its planned acquisition of Spirit AeroSystems.
For any enquiries or information, contact ask@tlr.ae or call us on +971 52 644 3004. Follow The Law Reporters on WhatsApp Channels.
Meghan Markle faces another potential court battle as her sister, Samantha Markle, prepares to challenge a previous defamation lawsuit that ruled in the duchess' favour, "readying revenge," according to reports.
Samantha is set to take her case to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeal, with her lawyers due to file their initial brief by this month, according to Express UK. She originally filed the case against Meghan in March 2022.
Samantha's legal team argues that the court failed to consider the "cumulative" meaning of Meghan's remarks, which they claim were "disparaging, hurtful and false," portraying Samantha as "a stranger, a liar, and... a deceptive fame-seeking imposter with avaricious intentions."
"The cumulative inferences and remarks made by (Meghan) have resulted in a cumulative meaning, which the court did not consider," the court documents state.
"In March 2024, Meghan secured a legal victory when Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell dismissed Samantha's defamation case against her, stating that the duchess “barely mentioned Samantha, only noting that at some point during Meghan's childhood, Samantha moved out of her father's house”.
Samantha had accused Meghan of defamation and defamation by implication, primarily based on statements Meghan made during her interview with Oprah Winfrey, where she suggested she grew up as an only child and began using the Markle surname "when I (Meghan) started dating Harry." Samantha was seeking a minimum of $75,000 in damages.
"I was with my mum during the week and with my dad on the weekends," the Suits star said in their Netflix documentary. "And my dad lived alone; he had two adult children who had moved out of his house."
She added, "I don't remember seeing her (Samantha) when I was a kid at my dad's house, if and when they would come around."
The judge found that Samantha "failed to identify any statements that could support a claim for defamation."
Judge Honeywell dismissed Samantha's case "with prejudice." She found the claim that Samantha only started using the Markle surname after Meghan's relationship with Prince Harry became public to be "substantially true," based on the evidence presented.
"That Plaintiff used one last name and then the name Markle soon after reports of Defendant's relationship with Prince Harry were published is substantially true, based on the exhibits in the record, of which the Court has taken judicial notice," Judge Honeywell wrote in her ruling.
Samantha also cited other statements in the royal biography Finding Freedom and the Netflix series Harry & Meghan as part of her case. However, the judge dismissed the case "with prejudice."
"Plaintiff's claims will be dismissed with prejudice, as she has failed to identify any statements that could support a claim for defamation or defamation-by-implication by this point, her third try at amending her complaint, in either the book Finding Freedom, the Netflix series Harry & Meghan, or Defendant and her husband's hour-long televised CBS Interview," the judge concluded.
For any enquiries or information, contact ask@tlr.ae or call us on +971 52 644 3004. Follow The Law Reporters on WhatsApp Channels.
Keir Starmer will become Britain's next Prime Minister as his Labour Party won a massive majority in the UK's parliamentary election. Rishi Sunak conceded defeat in the national election on Friday.
The result brought the curtain down on 14 years of increasingly tumultuous Conservative-led government.
UK Labour leader Keir Starmer is an ex-human rights lawyer and public prosecutor who will have to focus his relentless work ethic and methodical mind on fixing the country.
As Sunak conceded his defeat, 61-year-old Starmer will be the oldest person to become British Prime Minister in almost half a century -- and comes just nine years since he was first elected to parliament.
In 2003, he began moving towards the establishment, shocking colleagues and friends, first with a job ensuring police in Northern Ireland complied with human rights legislation.
Five years later, he was appointed director of public prosecutions (DPP) for England and Wales when Labour's Gordon Brown was Prime Minister.
Between 2008 and 2013, Starmer oversaw the prosecution of MPs for abusing their expenses, journalists for phone-hacking, and young rioters involved in unrest across England.
He was knighted by Queen Elizabeth II, but rarely uses the prefix "Sir", and in 2015 was elected as a member of Parliament, representing a seat in left-leaning north London.
Just weeks before he was elected, his mother died of a rare disease of the joints that had left her unable to walk for many years.
In 2020, Keir Starmer was elected to lead Britain's Labour Party, right after the party suffered its worst general election defeat in 85 years.
Starmer and Labour have also, indisputably, capitalised on years of economic pain and political chaos under the Conservative Party, who look set to have their parliamentary majority eviscerated.
Personal Life
Born on September 2, 1962, Keir Rodney Starmer was raised in a cramped, pebble-dashed semi-detached house on the outskirts of London by a seriously ill mother and an emotionally distant father.
He had three siblings, one of whom had learning difficulties. His parents were animal lovers who rescued donkeys.
A talented musician, Starmer had violin lessons at school with Norman Cook, the former Housemartins bassist who became DJ Fatboy Slim.
After legal studies at the universities of Leeds and Oxford, Starmer turned his attention to leftist causes, defending trade unions, anti-McDonald's activists and death row inmates abroad.
For any enquiries or information, contact ask@tlr.ae or call us on +971 52 644 3004. Follow The Law Reporters on WhatsApp Channels.
Nvidia, the American technology powerhouse renowned for its dominance in graphics processing units (GPUs) and artificial intelligence (AI) technologies, is reportedly on the brink of facing antitrust charges in France.
Sources close to the matter indicate that French regulators are preparing to accuse Nvidia of engaging in anti-competitive practices that have significantly affected the competitive landscape of the AI and high-performance computing markets.
The Autorité de la concurrence, France's antitrust watchdog has been conducting an in-depth investigation into Nvidia's business practices for over a year. The investigation focuses on claims that Nvidia has abused its dominant market position to the detriment of competitors and consumers. Specific allegations include restrictive agreements with hardware manufacturers and software developers, which may have hindered other companies' ability to compete in the AI and GPU markets.
Nvidia’s GPUs are widely regarded as the gold standard for AI development and high-performance computing, giving the company substantial influence over these sectors. Critics argue that Nvidia's practices have created significant barriers to entry for new players, stifling innovation and leading to higher prices for consumers.
Jean-Luc Dupont, an expert in European competition law, commented, "If the allegations are proven, it could have serious ramifications for Nvidia. The company’s market dominance has been a double-edged sword, facilitating rapid advancements in technology while potentially undermining competitive market dynamics."Nvidia has consistently denied any wrongdoing. In a recent statement, the company emphasised its commitment to fair competition and innovation. "Nvidia operates in a highly competitive market and adheres to all applicable laws and regulations. We look forward to addressing any concerns the French authorities may have," the statement read.
Should the charges be confirmed, Nvidia could face substantial fines and be compelled to alter its business practices in France and potentially across the European Union. The penalties could amount to a significant percentage of Nvidia’s annual revenue, alongside mandated changes to ensure a more competitive market landscape.
Market analysts are closely watching the developments, anticipating potential ripple effects across the tech industry. The charges could also influence regulatory approaches in other jurisdictions, possibly leading to a more stringent global regulatory environment for major tech firms.
The move by French regulators comes amidst a broader wave of antitrust scrutiny facing major tech companies worldwide. European authorities, in particular, have been proactive in addressing anti-competitive practices, with recent high-profile cases involving firms like Google, Apple, and Amazon.
Nicolas Martin, a technology policy analyst, noted, "The potential charges against Nvidia underscore the heightened vigilance of regulators in maintaining competitive markets, especially in high-tech industries where dominance can quickly translate into market power."
The Autorité de la concurrence is expected to formally announce the charges in the coming weeks, initiating a legal process that could span several months. Both Nvidia and the regulatory body will have the opportunity to present their cases, with potential outcomes ranging from dismissal of charges to significant penalties and mandated business practice reforms.
As Nvidia braces for this legal challenge, the outcome will be closely monitored by industry stakeholders, legal experts, and competitors alike, marking a critical moment in the ongoing efforts to regulate the influence of tech giants in the global market.
For any enquiries or information, contact ask@tlr.ae or call us on +971 52 644 3004. Follow The Law Reporters on WhatsApp Channels.
Singapore is seeking to make it easier for law enforcement to prosecute money laundering offences in the city-state, the home affairs ministry said, noting how currently some cases are not pursued unless it is possible to show the complete money trail of suspected funds from money laundering entering the Asian financial hub.
The new Anti-Money Laundering and Other Matters Bill introduced to parliament will remove the need for the prosecution to show a direct link between the criminal conduct and the laundered funds, the home affairs ministry said in a press release.
"It will be sufficient for the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the money launderer knew or had reasonable grounds to believe that he was dealing with criminal proceeds," said the ministry, adding this would help in the prosecution of money mules when funds laundered had initially passed through bank accounts and intermediaries in foreign jurisdictions.
Last year, Singapore busted a $2.24 billion money laundering ring run by foreign citizens, with the last of 10 offenders sentenced on June 10.
The criminals held money gained from overseas scams and overseas online gambling in bank accounts in Singapore and converted some into real estate, cars, handbags and jewellery.
Prime Minister Lawrence Wong said last month Singapore faces greater money laundering and terrorism financing risks than other countries because it is an international finance and business hub.
Since the money laundering case emerged last year, the government has set up an inter-ministerial panel to review its anti-money laundering regime.
The new bill will also allow law enforcement to investigate money laundering offences linked to overseas environmental crimes.
Currently, Singapore cannot investigate money laundering linked to crimes such as illegal mining, illegal waste trafficking and illegal logging that occur overseas because such crimes are not covered as a serious offence under Singapore law since they typically do not apply in the landscarce city-state.
The bill also makes it easier for law enforcement to sell seized or restrained properties, and deal with seized properties linked to suspects who have fled the country.
The ministry said it will also tighten requirements for casino operators to conduct customer due diligence, bringing down the threshold of a single cash transaction involving S$10,000 ($7,362) or more or S$5,000 or more in a deposit to transactions and deposits involving at least S$4,000.
Last month, Singapore published a national asset recovery strategy report, saying it sought to "deprive criminals of their illicit gains, thereby removing the financial incentive for laundering their monies in Singapore".
For any enquiries or information, contact ask@tlr.ae or call us on +971 52 644 3004. Follow The Law Reporters on WhatsApp Channels.
The US Supreme Court ruled that Donald Trump cannot be prosecuted for actions that were within his constitutional powers as president in a landmark decision recognising for the first time any form of presidential immunity from prosecution.
The justices, in a 6-3 ruling authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, threw out a lower court's decision that had rejected Trump's claim of immunity from federal criminal charges involving his efforts to undo his 2020 election loss to Joe Biden. The six conservative justices were in the majority, while its three liberal members dissented.
Trump is the Republican candidate challenging Biden, a Democrat, in the November 5 US election in a 2020 rematch. The Supreme Court's slow handling of the case and its decision to return key questions about the scope of Trump's immunity to the trial judge to resolve make it improbable he will be tried before the election on these charges brought by Special Counsel Jack Smith.
"We conclude that under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of presidential power requires that a former president have some immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts during his tenure in office," Roberts wrote.
Immunity for former presidents is "absolute" with respect to their "core constitutional powers," Roberts wrote, and a former president has "at least a presumptive immunity" for "acts within the outer perimeter of his official responsibility," meaning prosecutors face a high legal bar to overcome that presumption.
A Dangerous Precedent: Biden
In remarks at the White House, Biden called the ruling "a dangerous precedent" because the power of the presidency will no longer be constrained by the law.
"This nation was founded on the principle that there are no kings in America ... no one is above the law, not even the president of the United States," added Biden, speaking hours after one of his campaign officials said the ruling makes it easier for Trump "to pursue a path to dictatorship."
The ruling could scuttle parts of the special counsel's case as US District Judge Tanya Chutkan mulls the breadth of Trump's immunity.
In recognising broad immunity for Trump, Roberts cited the need for a president to "execute the duties of his office fearlessly and fairly" without the threat of prosecution.
"As for a president's unofficial acts," Roberts added, "there is no immunity."
Trump hailed the ruling in a social media post, writing: "BIG WIN FOR OUR CONSTITUTION AND DEMOCRACY. PROUD TO BE AN AMERICAN!"
Trump, 78, is the first former US president to be criminally prosecuted and the first former president convicted of a crime. Smith's election subversion charges embody one of the four criminal cases Trump has faced.
The court analysed four categories of conduct contained in the indictment. They are: his discussions with US Justice Department officials following the election; his alleged pressure on then-Vice President Mike Pence to block congressional certification of Biden's win; his alleged role in assembling fake pro-Trump electors to be used in the certification process; and his conduct related to the January 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol by his supporters.
The outcome gave Trump much of what he sought but stopped short of allowing absolute immunity for all official acts, as his lawyers had advocated. Instead the court specified that actions within the president's "exclusive sphere of constitutional authority" enjoy such a shield, while those taken outside his exclusive powers are only "presumptively immune."
The court found Trump was absolutely immune for conversations with Justice Department officials. Trump is also "presumptively immune" regarding his interactions with Pence, it decided, but returned that and the two other categories to lower courts to determine whether Trump has immunity.
The ruling marked the first time since the nation's 18th century founding that the Supreme Court has declared that former presidents may be shielded from criminal charges in any instance. The court's conservative majority includes three justices Trump appointed.
The court decided the case on the last day of its term.
'President is Now King'
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by fellow liberal Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, delivered a sharply worded dissent, saying the ruling effectively creates a "law-free zone around the president."
"When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority's reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution. Orders the Navy's Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organises a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune," Sotomayor wrote.
"In every use of official power, the president is now a king above the law," Sotomayor added.
Trump's trial had been scheduled to start on March 4 before the delays over the immunity issue. Now, no trial date is set. Trump made his immunity claim to the trial judge in October, meaning the issue has been litigated for about nine months.
'Thumb on the Scale’
UCLA School of Law professor Rick Hasen, a critic of Trump's efforts to overturn his election defeat, said: "The Supreme Court has put out a fact-intensive test on the boundaries of the president's immunity -- with a huge thumb on the scale favouring the president's immunity -- in a way that will surely push this case past the election."
"Sorting out the court's opinion and how it applies is going to take a while," Georgetown University law professor Erica Hashimoto added. "No chance of a pre-election trial."
The Supreme Court made two other rulings this year beneficial to Trump. In March, it reinstated Trump to the presidential primary ballot in Colorado. And last week, it raised the legal bar for prosecutors pursuing obstruction charges in Smith's election subversion case against Trump and defendants involved in the Capitol attack.
In the special counsel's August 2023 indictment, Trump was charged with conspiring to defraud the United States, corruptly obstructing an official proceeding and conspiring to do so, and conspiring against the right of Americans to vote. He has pleaded not guilty.
Sotomayor wrote on Monday: "Relying on little more than its own misguided wisdom about the need for bold and unhesitating action by the president, the court gives former President Trump all the immunity he asked for and more."
Hush Money Case
In a separate case brought in New York state court, Trump was found guilty by a jury in Manhattan on May 30 on 34 counts of falsifying documents to cover up hush money paid to a porn star to avoid a sex scandal before the 2016 election. Trump also faces criminal charges in two other cases. He has pleaded not guilty in those and called all the cases against him politically motivated.
Not since its landmark Bush v. Gore decision, which handed the disputed 2000 US election to Republican George W. Bush over Democrat Al Gore, has the Supreme Court played such an integral role in a presidential race.
If Trump regains the presidency, he could try to force an end to the prosecution or potentially pardon himself for any federal crimes.
China has strengthened its laws governing disaster management, imposing stricter penalties for inadequate responses and intensifying government oversight of media coverage during emergencies.
The legal revisions aim to bolster emergency preparedness and streamline the dissemination of information concerning natural disasters, accidents, and public health crises.
They also expand the scope of government control over news reporting, potentially tightening restrictions in a nation vigilant against information that could undermine social stability and security, analysts noted.
Recent years have seen China grappling with more frequent and severe weather extremes, challenging local authorities' ability to respond effectively. The amendments to the Emergency Response Law, effective from November 1, escalate fines for insufficient disaster preparation or response fivefold, up to 1 million yuan (£110,000).
Under the new regulations, government agencies will exert greater influence over media coverage, mandating a more regulated "news interviewing and reporting system" without specifying detailed guidelines. Officials are instructed to guide and support news media while supervising public opinion.
The revised law emphasises the importance of timely, accurate, objective, and fair reporting during emergencies. It mandates swift dissemination of emergency warnings and designates personnel responsible for public communication in crises.
While ostensibly aiming to enhance the accuracy and fairness of information, critics argue the revisions further consolidate state control over information flows. They impose stricter requirements on journalists covering emergencies, fostering a more prescriptive environment for media professionals.
Passed by the Standing Committee of China's National People's Congress, the revisions introduce over 30 new provisions to the 2007 law. They prohibit government agencies from delaying, misreporting, concealing information, or obstructing others from reporting, responding to past public outcry over delayed disaster management.
Foreigners in China will now be required to comply with local laws and government directives under the updated legislation, reflecting China's increasing scrutiny of crisis preparedness and its political expectations during emergencies.
The regulatory changes signal a heightened focus on crisis management readiness, impacting not only foreign residents and media but also international businesses operating within China, observers cautioned.
For any enquiries or information, contact ask@tlr.ae or call us on +971 52 644 3004. Follow The Law Reporters on WhatsApp Channels.
Under Armour said it has agreed to pay $434 million to settle a 2017 class action lawsuit accusing the sports apparel maker of defrauding shareholders about its revenue growth in order to meet Wall Street forecasts.
The proposed settlement, subject to court approval, averts a scheduled July 15 trial in Baltimore federal court. The shareholder lawsuit accused the apparel maker and CEO Kevin Plank of intentionally misleading them about the company's financial health.
In 2021, the Baltimore-based company had agreed to pay $9 million to settle Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) charges that it misled investors about its revenue growth.
The SEC in its investigation found that Under Armour failed to disclose to investors that it employed a sales tactic to accelerate or "pull forward" a total of $408 million in existing orders in the second half of 2015.
Mark Solomon, lead counsel for the shareholders and a partner at litigation firm Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, called the proposed settlement an "important win" that underscored the key role of pension funds in holding companies accountable.
Under Armour said it intends to pay the settlement amount of $434 million through cash on hand as well as by drawing on its $1.1 billion revolving credit facility.
The company added in a regulatory filing it had agreed to also continue to separate the roles of the chair and the chief executive officer for a period of at least three years.
Under Armour said it has consistently denied the accusations and entered into this agreement in principle, which is not an admission or finding of fault or wrongdoing.
The company expects its total accrual in legal proceeding contingencies related to the lawsuit to reach $434 million during the first quarter of fiscal year 2025, from $100 million at the end of fiscal 2024.
For any enquiries or information, contact ask@tlr.ae or call us on +971 52 644 3004. Follow The Law Reporters on WhatsApp Channels.
The US Supreme Court upheld a federal law that makes it a crime for people under domestic violence restraining orders to have guns, handing a victory to President Joe Biden's administration as the justices opted not to further widen firearms rights after a major expansion in 2022.
The 8-1 ruling, authored by conservative Chief Justice John Roberts, overturned a lower court's decision striking down the 1994 law as a violation of the US Constitution's Second Amendment right to "keep and bear arms."
The law was challenged by a Texas man who was subject to a restraining order for assaulting his girlfriend in a car park and later threatening to shoot her.
The New Orleans-based 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals had concluded that the measure failed the Supreme Court's stringent test set in 2022 that required gun laws to be "consistent with the nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation" to comply with the Second Amendment.
But Roberts wrote that since the nation's founding, firearm laws have targeted people who threaten physical harm to others.
"When a restraining order contains a finding that an individual poses a credible threat to the physical safety of an intimate partner, that individual may -- consistent with the Second Amendment -- be banned from possessing firearms while the order is in effect," Roberts wrote.
Biden's administration defended the law as critical to protect public safety and abuse victims, who often are women.
"No one who has been abused should have to worry about their abuser getting a gun," Biden said, touting his record on gun control. "As a result of (Friday's) ruling, survivors of domestic violence and their families will still be able to count on critical protections, just as they have for the past three decades."
Conservative Justice Clarence Thomas, who authored the 2022 ruling in a case called New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, was the lone dissenter.
"Not a single historical regulation justifies the statute at issue," Thomas wrote, adding that "in the interest of ensuring the government can regulate one subset of society, (Friday's) decision puts at risk the Second Amendment rights of many more."
The case involved Zackey Rahimi, who pleaded guilty in 2021 to illegally possessing guns in violation of this law while subject to a restraining order.
Police found a pistol and rifle while searching Rahimi's residence in connection with at least five shootings, including using an assault-type rifle to fire at the home of a man to whom he had sold drugs.
A federal judge had rejected Rahimi's Second Amendment challenge and sentenced him to more than six years in prison before the case went to the 5th Circuit.
Violating this law was punishable by up to 10 years in prison at the time of Rahimi's indictment but has since been raised to 15 years.
'A Sigh of Relief
Gun control advocates welcomed Friday's ruling. "As millions of domestic violence victims breathe a sigh of relief, it's worth remembering who put them in jeopardy: extreme Trump-appointed judges on the 5th Circuit who sided with an abuser who wanted to keep his guns," said John Feinblatt, president of Everytown for Gun Safety, referring to Republican former President Donald Trump.
Rahimi's lawyer declined to comment. In a nation bitterly divided over how to address firearms violence including frequent mass shootings, the Supreme Court often has taken an expansive view of the Second Amendment.
It broadened gun rights in landmark rulings in 2008 and 2010 before the 2022 Bruen decision, which recognised a constitutional right to carry a handgun in public for self-defence and struck down New York state's limits on carrying concealed handguns.
In Friday's ruling, Roberts made clear that the history and tradition test set in Bruen for gun regulations is not as inflexible as the 5th Circuit's ruling and Thomas's dissent suggested.
Roberts said that under the Bruen precedent, modern gun restrictions do not require a "historical twin" in order to be lawful.
Five justices who joined the majority in the ruling wrote concurring opinions, reflecting a vigorous debate over the workability of the Bruen test. Liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said the Rahimi case demonstrated that lower courts are struggling to apply the Bruen tenets.
"In my view, the blame may lie with us, not with them," Jackson wrote. In another firearms-related decision, the Supreme Court on June 14, declared unlawful a federal ban on "bump stock" devices that enable semi-automatic weapons to fire rapidly like machine guns, although that case did not involve the Second Amendment.
In a May Reuters/Ipsos poll, 75 per cent of registered voters, including 84 per cent of Democrats and 70 per cent of Republicans, said that a person subject to a domestic violence restraining order should not be allowed to possess firearms.
For any enquiries or information, contact ask@tlr.ae or call us on +971 52 644 3004. Follow The Law Reporters on WhatsApp Channels.
An American family is claiming more than $80,000 from NASA after a small piece of debris fell from space and smashed through the roof of their Florida home, a law firm said.
The problem of space trash has risen in tandem with increased spatial traffic, and NASA's response could set a precedent for how future claims are handled, law firm Cranfill Sumner said in a statement.
On March 8, the object weighing just 700 grammes hit Alejandro Otero's home in Naples, Florida, making a hole in the roof.
NASA later confirmed it was part of a cargo pallet of used batteries that was released from the International Space Station as waste in 2021.
Instead of fully disintegrating before falling to Earth, a section remained intact when it reentered the atmosphere, the US space agency said.
Otero's son was at the house at the moment of impact, according to the law firm, which said that NASA has six months to respond to its claim.
"My clients are seeking adequate compensation to account for the stress and impact that this event had on their lives," said lawyer Mica Nguyen Worthy.
"They are grateful that no one sustained physical injuries from this incident, but a ‘near miss’ situation such as this could have been catastrophic.
"There could have been serious injury or a fatality." NASA did not immediately respond to AFP's request for a comment.
For any enquiries or information, contact ask@tlr.ae or call us on +971 52 644 3004. Follow The Law Reporters on WhatsApp Channels.
A total of 26 hotels in France have launched a lawsuit against the San Francisco-based short-term rental company Airbnb for unfair trade practices.
The plaintiffs seek a total amount of 9.2 million euros ($9.9 million) in damages, with each hotel claiming an average of Eur355,019, said the hotels' lawyer Jonathan Bellaiche.
They are accusing the company of allowing and failing to control illegal ads on its platform, and of not paying its tourist tax in 2021 and 2022, Bellaiche added.
The case alleges loss of opportunity to attract clientele, adding that the platform attracts consumers illegally. It also claims commercial disruption, with undue advantage given by the illegal ads by avoiding the cost of commerciality.
"This claim is not the first attempt by a hotel lobby to restrict Airbnb's lawful business in France and, as such, hosts' right to let their homes," Airbnb said in a statement. By the end of 2023, the company had remitted more than Eur187 million in tourist tax to French communes on behalf of hosts, it added.
The company claims that French law gives families the right to share their space and welcome guests across the country, and Airbnb follows the rules applicable to its platform, including sharing data and paying taxes.
The hotels, of which some are independent and others are members of chains, are located in about a dozen cities in the country, including Nice, Strasbourg and Cannes.
The case was filed in commercial court in Lisieux, in France's Normandy region, and the hearing will take place within a year, Bellaiche said.
If the lawsuit is detrimental to the company's activities or the ability of families to share their homes, Airbnb will consider all legal options to protect these rights, it said.
For any enquiries or information, contact ask@tlr.ae or call us on +971 52 644 3004. Follow The Law Reporters on WhatsApp Channels.
Families of victims from the two fatal crashes involving Boeing 737 Max aircraft are urging the US Department of Justice (DOJ) to pursue a fine of $24.8 billion against the aerospace giant, labelling the incidents as the deadliest corporate crime in US history.
Paul Cassell, representing 15 families, emphasised in a letter to the DOJ that this amount is legally warranted and fitting. He proposed that between $14 billion and $22 billion of the total fine could be suspended if Boeing allocates these funds to an independent corporate monitor and enhances its safety programs.
Additionally, Cassell urged the DOJ to consider criminal prosecution of Boeing and insisted that the company's board of directors meet with the families affected.
The letter coincided with Boeing CEO Dave Calhoun facing intense questioning from US senators about Boeing's safety culture following recent incidents, including a January incident where a 737 Max fuselage panel detached during flight, triggering a criminal investigation.
Boeing and the DOJ did not respond immediately for comment due to a US holiday. The DOJ's scrutiny intensified after it was found that Boeing had violated a 2021 deferred-prosecution agreement, originally established after the 737 Max crashes in 2018 and 2019 that claimed 346 lives.
The DOJ's decision on potential penalties for Boeing, which may include criminal charges or renegotiating terms of the agreement, is expected by July 7.
The families' letter also urged the DOJ to prosecute former Boeing executives who were in leadership roles during the crashes. However, the families acknowledged that the five-year statute of limitations might complicate potential criminal charges against individuals.
The ongoing developments underscore the gravity of the situation for Boeing, as it navigates legal repercussions and public scrutiny stemming from the tragic aviation accidents.
For any enquiries or information, contact ask@tlr.ae or call us on +971 52 644 3004. Follow The Law Reporters on WhatsApp Channels.
