In his China Law Blog, Dan Harris writes that the dispute resolution provision in China contract may be the most important provision in the contract.

“If you put in a dispute resolution provision that makes sense, your Chinese company counter-party with whom you are contracting will be afraid to breach the contract. Conversely, if you put into the contract a dispute resolution provision that will not work, you are signaling to your Chinese company counter-party that it can breach its contract with you with impunity. Yes, it really is that important,” Harris writes in the blog post.

He explains why a provision calling for resolution in U.S. courts can sometimes be a hindrance, compared to a clause requiring dispute resolution to take place in Chinese courts.

Read the article.

Drafting an arbitration clause for an agreement may seem like a straightforward matter most of the time, writes Gilbert A. Samberg for Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo. It may even be as simple as incorporating by reference an arbitration provision in another document or agreement. Or is it?

In the article, he discusses a recent federal district court ruling, Cooperativa Agraria Industrial Naranjillo Ltda. v. Transmar Commodity Group, Ltd., that may offer a cautionary lesson  before making such assumptions.

“In Naranjillo, the decisive principle was that an offeree cannot assent to an offer unless the offeree knows of its existence. The Court found that there had been no showing that Naranjillo actually knew of the existence of the arbitration clause terms,” Samberg explains.

Read the article.

When putting together a contract for the first time, many business owners may turn to standard form contracts to make agreements between customers, vendors, and other businesses, writes Corey F. Schechter of Butterfield Schechter LLP.

“Calling these contracts ‘standard’ may make it seem like they will protect your interests and provide for any contingencies that arise,” he explains. “However, many businesses find that a standard form contract ends up hurting their business.”

Because a form contract is designed to cover all bases, it may avoid language that is specific to a particular type of business, according to the article.

“Not only do these vague business contracts fail to address important issues that may arise between the two parties, they may also lead to confusion over what terms will actually govern the agreement,” Schechter writes.

Read the article.

A Texas judge’s decision to block sweeping new overtime rules hadn’t been out for two hours Monday evening before Philadelphia employment lawyer Gina Ameci started getting phone calls from her employer clients, reports The Philadelphia Inquirer.

Now what? “As of today, there is no law,” she said. “Anything is possible.”

“The judge’s decision came as a relief to industry groups, such as the Retail Industry Leaders Association, one of the 50 business groups that had sued the U.S. Labor Department,” writes reporter Jane M. Von Bergen.

“Ameci said her clients, now faced with a period of uncertainty, would now have to weigh their risks. Should they roll back new policies to save money and then face potential liability if the regulation is ultimately upheld? That risk might be worth it, she said, for nonprofits who often have people doing professional work, but earning in the $35,000 a year range,” the report says.

Read The Inquirer‘s article.

Reuters tells the story of “Chapter 22” companies, oil and gas industry firms that return to bankruptcy court after their first Chapter 11 overhaul failed to fix their problems.

Reporter Jessica DiNapoli describes the scene at Global Geophysical Services LLC, where a few employees are winding down what is left of an oil and gas industry data provider that only three years ago had a staff of more than 1,000 and offices around the world.

“A casualty of high debt and a cash crunch, the company filed for bankruptcy in early 2014 before tumbling oil prices pushed scores of other energy firms over the edge. Last year, it became one of nearly 20 companies that have already exited bankruptcy, but is now one of the first to have filed for creditor protection again,” she explains in the article.

She quotes Edward Altman, a professor emeritus at the Stern School of Business at New York University, as saying that nearly a fifth of all U.S. companies that exit bankruptcy as a going concern seek creditor protection again within about five years.

Read the Reuters story.

Image by Ron Cogswell

As the top lawyer for the Chicago Cubs, Lydia Wahlke spends most of her time protecting and enforcing the team’s brand, but she still gets to be a fan of the new World Series champions, according to an interview published in Bloomberg’s Big Law Business.

She spent four years at Miramax Films as a video editor and field producer before deciding to take the LSAT on a whim. That led to law school and then being hired as a litigation associate at Kirkland & Ellis in her home town of Chicago. Then in 2010 she joined the Cubs organization.

“One of the greatest challenges we have is also one of our greatest assets: our brand,” she told Bloomberg’s Casey Sullivan. “We have needed to find the right path to protecting and enforcing our brand, while allowing our fans to celebrate being fans and celebrate their love of the team. That can be challenging because we are 146 years old and it’s a really complex brand that has come about in many ways, including organically from fans celebrating the team. You have to find that dividing line between fighting people and protecting your licenses and protecting your brand long-term, but you don’t want to take the fun out of it. That can be deciding whether or not to enforce our mark.”

Read the Bloomberg article.

By Laura Drossman
Drossman Law

Laura Drossman

Complying with the California Rules of Professional Conduct can be challenging enough for an attorney, but issues can become even more complicated if you are also practicing a dual profession. Engaging in a second occupation may appeal to some attorneys (especially solo practitioners who may enjoy more flexibility in their practice) as they can draw on their legal experience in performing such service, diversify their revenue stream, or sow long-lost creative oats. But lawyers must always consider the practical and ethical challenges involved with actively practicing dual occupations.

Subject to certain restrictions, California state ethics rules generally permit California attorneys to engage in the practice of law and a second occupation. This issue has been addressed by the state bar’s Standing Committee on Professional Responsibility and Conduct in several opinions.¹ Engaging in dual professions may carry traps for the unwary lawyer, however, as such conduct may conflict with a lawyer’s duties of confidentiality, loyalty, and/or violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, which govern an attorney’s actions at all times.

Providing non-legal services to a client is considered a business transaction, but one that creates actual and potential conflicts of interest. A client for whom a lawyer provides non-legal services is nonetheless considered a legal client with respect to the applicability of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Therefore, prior to entering into any such transaction, the attorney must determine all actual and potential conflicts, and if such conflicts are waivable. If so, the attorney must disclose the conflicts and risks and obtain written client informed consent and waiver. If not, the attorney must forego the deal.

Conflicts present even greater risk where attorneys perform “law-related” occupations, such as real estate brokerage or financial services to non-legal clients. In those situations, the lawyer is bound by the Rules of Professional Conduct as well as the rules and regulations governing the second occupation, and is responsible for reconciling the two. This can be challenging and potentially impossible where, for example, a lawyer providing real estate brokerage services must reconcile his or her duty to keep all information relating to the representation of a client confidential with the robust disclosure obligations imposed on brokers by the Bureau of Real Estate regulations.

An attorney must continue to comply with the Rules, even in promoting their second occupation. Advertising for the provision of non-legal services that imply clients will benefit from the attorney’s legal expertise is governed by the Rules of Professional Conduct and must conform to all rules governing lawyer advertising. Further, lawyers must be careful to not use their side occupation as a way to solicit legal clients in a manner that may violate the rules prohibiting in-person solicitation.

Finally, in structuring partnership or other shared business arrangements for non-legal deals, lawyers must be sure they maintain full control over their legal practice, and avoid any sharing of legal fees.

Footnote
1. California State Bar Formal Opinion Numbers 1982-69, 1995-141 and 1999-154.

Laura Drossman is the principal attorney at Drossman Law, a real estate and business law firm based in San Francisco. She is also a licensed real estate broker.

Practical Law will present a free 75-minute webinar in which Mark A. Bodron, Baker Botts LLP, Gia G. Norris, Practical Law, Elizabeth A. Gilman, K&L Gates and Judy Hensley, Roberts & Holland, will provide a practical roadmap for counsel to employers on best practices for advising clients on pension and welfare plan overpayments.

The event will be Tuesday, Dec. 6, at 1 p.m. Eastern time. See the registration page for CLE status.

Participants of this program will:

• Review common scenarios in which pension and welfare plan overpayments arise.
• Gain an understanding of the legal framework and correction procedures governing pension plan overpayments, including potentially thorny tax issues that impact your employees.
• Learn practical strategies to protect your clients from the most recent wave of litigation in the self-funded group health plan context.

A brief Q&A session will follow.

Presenters:

Mark A. Bodron, Partner, Baker Botts LLP
Mark Bodron is a partner in the Houston office of Baker Botts. His practice concentrates on the areas of employee benefits and executive compensation. Bodron advises clients on all aspects of qualified retirement plans, including 401(k) plans, ESOPs and cash balance plans, nonqualified plans, stock-based plans and deferred compensation and other executive compensation arrangements, including issues related to Section 409A deferred compensation rules and Section 162(m) performance-based compensation. Bodron’s practice also includes advising clients on health and welfare plan matters, including compliance and reporting issues related to the Affordable Care Act, COBRA and HIPAA. He frequently advises clients on ERISA fiduciary and prohibited transaction matters and represents clients before the IRS, DOL and PBGC on matters related to employee benefits.

Gia G. Norris, Senior Legal Editor, Practical Law Employee Benefits & Executive Compensation
Norris joined Practical Law from Roberts & Holland LLP, where she was a senior employee benefits and executive compensation associate. Previously she was an employee benefits and executive compensation associate at both White & Case LLP and Proskauer Rose LLP. Norris is the Website & Technology Chair of the Employee Benefits Committee of the America Bar Association’s Section of Taxation. She is also a member of the Employee Benefits Committee of the Tax Section of the New York State Bar Association.

Norris received her Juris Doctorate from the University of Pennsylvania Law School and her Bachelor of Arts from Johns Hopkins University in Political Science and Women’s Studies.

Elizabeth A. Gilman, Associate, K&L Gates LLP
Elizabeth Gilman is a litigation associate in the firm’s Houston office. She focuses her practice on commercial disputes and is uniquely qualified in disputes involving the energy sector, especially oil and gas. Her technical education and experience enhances the value of her representation and counsel. She earned her undergraduate degree from Purdue University, majoring in industrial management with an emphasis in manufacturing. Gilman excels in her ability to work with clients and experts in complex fields. Gilman has experience in all phases of the dispute process which allows her to provide comprehensive representation for her clients. She has experience in early dispute management, litigation and arbitration through the appellate process and collection. She has tried cases both in front of a jury and an arbitrator. On behalf of her clients, she brings a high level of experience in energy litigation, and both on-shore and off-shore construction disputes. Gilman’s experience in contract negotiation and drafting further contributes to the value of her representation to her clients. Her experience spans many forums, including mediation, state and federal court, and domestic and international arbitration.

Judy Hensley, Associate, Roberts & Holland LLP
Judy M. Hensley concentrates on a wide variety of employee benefits and executive compensation matters in both the transactional and compliance contexts. She advises on tax, ERISA and other legal considerations relating to employee benefit plans, programs and arrangements, including design, administration and compliance of tax-qualified plans. She has advised clients on ERISA fiduciary matters for investment funds and plan fiduciaries. Her experience includes the structuring and design of equity compensation arrangements, including stock options, stock appreciation rights, restricted stock, restricted stock units, phantom stock, performance shares and LLC/partnership interests (including profits interests) and nonqualified deferred compensation plans, as well as executive employment, severance and change-in-control agreements. She also has advised clients on compensation and benefits issues unique to bankruptcy and restructuring transactions.

Register for the webinar.

The $100 million discrimination lawsuit filed against the New York-based international law firm Chadbourne & Parke over claims that female partners are paid less than their male counterparts is less about gender than employment status, according to Sarah Bradbury, senior counsel at Dallas litigation boutique Estes Thorne & Carr PLLC.

An article published by Androvett Legal Media & Marketing quotes Bradbury:

“While it is becoming increasingly easy to create an employment relationship and characterize an independent contractor as an employee, an equity partner cannot be categorized as an ‘employee,’ making it very difficult to prevail in this case. However, if a similar lawsuit were brought by income level partners, it becomes a very different case.

“Gender pay disparity may be real at this particular firm specifically or within the legal profession generally. However, even if the disparity exists, in this instance, because the attorneys are not employees of the firm, they simply have no employment discrimination route to pursue,” adds Ms. Bradbury, who is Board Certified in Labor & Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization.

By Patty P. Tehrani
Lawyer and Founder of Policy Patty Toolkit

The cybersecurity regulations keep coming. Following New York’s proposed regulation on cybersecurity, and notice from banking regulators on proposed cybersecurity rules, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) has issued an advisory and related FAQ.

The advisory includes key definitions relevant to cyber-related incidents as follows:
• Cyber-Event: An attempt to compromise or gain unauthorized electronic access to electronic systems, services, resources, or information.
• Cyber-Enabled Crime: Illegal activities (e.g., fraud, money laundering, identity theft) carried out or facilitated by electronic systems and devices, such as networks and computers.
• Cyber-Related Information: Information that describes technical details of electronic activity and behavior, such as IP addresses, timestamps, and Indicators of Compromise (IOCs). Cyber-related information also includes, but is not limited to, data regarding the digital footprint of individuals and their behavior.

The advisory explains how BSA requirements apply to cyber-events, cyber-enabled crime, and cyber-related information with guidance on:
• reporting cyber-enabled crime and cyber-events through SARs;
o consider all available information surrounding the cyber-event, including its nature and the information and systems targeted;
o determine monetary amounts involved in the transactions or attempted transactions (should consider in aggregate the funds and assets involved);
o know other cyber-related SAR filing obligations required by their functional regulator;
• including relevant and available cyber-related information (examples provided – IP addresses with timestamps, virtual-wallet information, device identifiers, and cyber-event information) in SARs to:
o provide complete and accurate information, including relevant facts, to the extent available:
 description and magnitude of the event;
 known or suspected time, location, and characteristics or signatures of the event;
 indicators of compromise;
 relevant IP addresses and their timestamps;
 device identifiers;
 methodologies used; and
 other information the institution believes is relevant;
o refer to the FAQs for additional information on reporting cyber-related information in SARs;
• collaborating internally between BSA/Anti-Money Laundering (AML) units and other units to identify suspicious activity to:
o make sure to internally share relevant information from across the organization to help reveal additional patterns of suspicious behavior and identify suspects not previously known to BSA/AML units;
o use cyber-related information to:
 help identify suspicious activity and criminal actors;
 develop a more comprehensive understanding of their BSA/AML risk exposure;
 use information provided by BSA/AML units to help the institution guard against cyber-events and cyber-enabled crime;
 provide for more comprehensive and complete SAR reporting;
• sharing information among financial institutions to guard against and report money laundering, terrorism financing, and cyber-enabled crime to:
o identify threats, vulnerabilities, and criminals; and
o note the extension of Section 314(b) of the USA PATRIOT Act as a safe harbor from liability to financial institutions—after notifying FinCEN and satisfying certain other requirements— to encourage information sharing.
The supplemental FAQs provide additional guidance on reporting obligations for cyber events and cover the following questions:
• What information should a financial institution include in SARs when reporting cyber-events and cyber-enabled crime?
• How should a financial institution complete SARs when reporting cyber-events and cyber-enabled crime
• How should cyber-events and cyber-enabled crime be characterized in SARs?
• How does a financial institution report numerous cyber events in SARs?
• Is a financial institution required to file SARs to report continuous scanning or probing of a financial institution’s systems or network?
• Should a SAR be filed in instances where an otherwise reportable cyber-event is unsuccessful?
• Does FinCEN now require financial institutions’ BSA/AML units to have personnel/systems devoted to cybersecurity?
• Are BSA/AML personnel now required to be knowledgeable on cybersecurity and cyber-events?
• Can financial institutions use Section 314(b) of the USA PATRIOT Act to share cyber-event and cyber-enabled crime information with other financial institutions
Note: These new FAQs replace prior guidance provided by FinCEN.

FinCEN hopes the guidance will help reduce cyber risks for financial institutions as serve as a reminder on:
• their Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) obligations regarding cyber-events and cyber-enabled crime;
• how BSA reporting helps U.S. authorities combat cyber-events and cyber-enabled crime;
• compliance with BSA requirements or other regulatory obligations for financial institutions does not absolve them from having to comply with federal and state notice/reporting requirements and guidance on cyber-related incidents;
• encouraging collaboration:
o within financial institutions—between employees combating cyber-crime and employees combating money laundering;
o information sharing between financial institutions to again more effectively combat cyber-crime; and
• filing a Suspicious Activity Report (SAR) does not relieve it from any other applicable notice requirements of events impacting critical systems and information or of disruptions in their ability to operate.

Note: Under the Bank Secrecy Act, financial institutions must file SARs to report suspicious activity.

Arlene Switzer Steinfield, Dallas-based Senior Counsel in Dykema Cox Smith’s Labor and Employment Practice, was recognized in D Magazine‘s CEO’s special edition, The Dallas 500. Steinfield was one of only six honorees recognized in the area of “Law-Labor and Employment.” D CEO celebrated this year’s honorees with a reception on November 16, 2016.

The Dallas 500 is a special print edition of D CEO that celebrates the most influential and powerful business leaders in North Texas. It is the result of a year-long research initiative from the editors of D CEO, compiling a list based on extensive contacts in local business circles and hundreds of interviews. Unprecedented in scope, The Dallas 500 provides an engaging, personal look at the people across 60 categories that make Dallas such a powerful economic force.

In a release, the firm said:

Steinfield has more than 38 years of experience representing management in labor and employment law. In her practice, she litigates employment discrimination cases and workplace disputes in state and federal court, conducts employment law compliance training, counsels employers on preventative compliance strategies, and appears frequently on behalf of employers before numerous administrative agencies including the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Department of Labor Employment Standards Administration, the Texas Workforce Commission, and the National Labor Relations Board. She also serves as an independent investigator of internal workplace harassment and discrimination complaints, and as a mediator in workplace disputes. Ms. Steinfield’s proactive approach to employee relations enables her clients to address employee disputes effectively. What distinguishes Ms. Steinfield is her ability to devise creative and practical strategies for resolving personnel disputes with minimal disruption to the employer’s operations.

Outside of her practice, Steinfield serves on the Board of Governors for the College of Labor and Employment Lawyers, is a Fellow of the American, Texas and Dallas Bar Foundations, and is a Trustee with the Texas International Theatrical Arts Society. She has been recognized by Chambers USA as a Leader in Labor and Employment each year since 2007, and by The Best Lawyers of America® and Texas Super Lawyers® each year since 2003, including being listed in the Texas Super Lawyers® “Top 100 Lawyers in Texas” (2011), the “Top 100 Lawyers in Dallas/Fort Worth” (2011-2013), and the “Top 50 Women Lawyers in Texas” (2010-2013, 2015).

Steinfield received a B.A., with distinction, from the University of Rochester, and her J.D., magna cum laude, from Georgetown University Law Center, where she served on the Executive Editorial Board of the American Criminal Law Review.

Blockchain consortium R3 has contracted global law firm Norton Rose Fulbright to determine the contractual effect and enforceability of smart contracts, reports Finextra.

The issue is whether, or in what circumstances, smart contacts have legally binding contractual effect, are enforceable and whether disputes arising from smart contracts can be resolved by an automated resolution process built into a smart contract.

The Finextra report quotes Todd McDonald, co-founder and COO of R3: “The past few years have seen a great deal of talk about distributed ledger technologies given the profound impact they will have on the future of financial services. In order to fully realise the benefits of the technology, it is essential that we design smart contracts that are legally enforceable. Working with our partners at Norton Rose Fulbright, we’re exploring various ways to ensure smart contracts meet that threshold.”

Read the article.

In the months since Cravath Swaine & Moore hiked starting salaries for first year associates by 11 percent to $180,000, law firms across the country raised their associate compensation scale to match — and now those pay increases are showing up as profit growth slows at some law firms, according to a new report on the first three quarters of 2016 compiled by Citi Private Bank.

“This is the first quarter we have an opportunity to see that,” David Altuna, a senior vice president and client adviser in the Citi Law Firm group, told Bloomberg Law.

“Altuna said that the associate salary hikes, which started in July and continued to spread during the summer, are causing expenses to grow faster across the industry,” writes Gabe Friedman. “While the most elite firms have been able to grow revenues faster than expenses, all other firms felt the strain of high lawyer compensation expenses.”

Friedman provides a transcript of his interview with Altuna.

Read the Bloomberg article.

Mining giant Rio Tinto PLC said it fired one of its most senior operational executives and its head of legal and regulatory affairs based on the findings from a continuing internal probe into $10.5 million in payments to a consultant who helped acquire mining rights in Guinea, reports The Wall Street Journal.

The two executives are  energy and minerals chief executive Alan Davies and legal and regulatory affairs group executive Debra Valentine.

The company is reported to be investigating emails related to payments to a consultant who helped to acquire rights to mine the prized Simandou iron-ore deposit. Rio Tinto has notified law enforcement officials and regulators, including the U.S. Justice Department, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and the U.K.’s Serious Fraud Office, writes Rhiannon Hoyle.

Read the WSJ article.

Lack of precision in reinsurance contract wording has been known to engender anomalous results, points out Larry P. Schiffer in Squire Patton Boggs’ Insurance and Reinsurance Disputes Blog.

“Often a single word or phrase can cause a court or arbitrator to construe an agreement in ways unintended. In reinsurance arbitrations, when the panel majority decides how a contract operates based on its construction of a word or phrase, the losing party is likely stuck with that result even if a court might have construed the contract differently,” he writes.

He describes a recent case that illustrates his point that legalese and unnecessary words can cause a trier of fact to interpret a clause in a way that is unexpected.

Read the article.

While at first glance, an engagement with the federal government may appear lucrative, the venture comes with many strings attached, and the cost of compliance with the rules can quickly outweigh the financial benefit of the contract itself, warns Jennifer S. Cluverius in an article on the website of Nexsen Pruet, LLC.

She writes that a lack of experience can lead a federal contractor or subcontractor can encounter these pitfalls.

The article discusses some of the most costly and often-unnoticed employment-related compliance obligations.

Read the article.

Jared Kushner, the son-in-law of President-elect Donald J. Trump, has spoken to a lawyer about the possibility of joining the new administration, a move that could violate federal anti-nepotism law and risk legal challenges and political backlash, reports The New York Times.

“Mr. Kushner, 35, the husband of Mr. Trump’s eldest daughter, Ivanka, and an influential adviser to his father-in-law during the presidential campaign, had been planning to return to his private businesses after Election Day,” report Julie Hirschfeld Davis and Maggie Haberman “But on the morning after Mr. Trump won, Mr. Kushner began discussing taking a role in the White House, according to two people briefed on the conversations who requested anonymity to describe Mr. Kushner’s thinking.”

Kushner has considered putting his holdings into a blind trust and working at the White House without pay, but ethics lawyers in both parties have warned that such an arrangement would violate that 1967 law enacted after John F. Kennedy installed his brother, Robert F. Kennedy, as attorney general.

Read The Times article.

A Pennsylvania Superior Court panel has upheld a fine of almost $45,000 against Philadelphia insurance defense attorney Nancy Raynor, imposed for alleged witness intimidation during a medical-malpractice case that at one point also resulted in a controversial $1 million sanction against her, reports The Philadelphia Inquirer.

A separate judicial overturned the earlier sanction — imposed in 2014 by a lower court — in June.

Reporter Aswin Mannepalli writes that Superior Court judges found Raynor was responsible for the $44,993.25 in legal fees and other expenses incurred by the plaintiff in the malpractice case as a result of Raynor’s actions.

Read the Inquirer article.

Zapproved has published “The New Law Department Professional,” which discusses the savings corporate legal departments can realize by bringing e-discovery in-house.

“Although their primary duty has always been to protect the organization, in-house legal professionals commonly wear two hats,” the company says in a release. “In addition to their core responsibilities, they often are tasked with handling the administrative operations of the legal department. In the past, marrying these dual roles meant that this less substantive, ministerial work became less of a priority and was pushed down to lower levels or that this work was compartmentalized, leading to independent—and inefficient—silos. Today, however, things have changed.

“These days, legal professionals are expected to lead the charge in implementing corporate initiatives aimed at reducing costs, mitigating risk, introducing new technologies, and changing corporate culture. No longer are the administrative priorities secondary to the substantive work—they are an integral part of it. At the 2016 Conference on Preservation Excellence, panelists discussed ways the new breed of law department professionals are helping to transform their department so it runs like a business, from e-discovery to information governance and more.”

The discussion features:

Moderator:

• Mike Quartararo, Director of Litigation Support Services, Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP

Panelists:

• David Castro, Associate General Counsel and Chief Litigation Counsel, Hess Corporation
• Dawn Radcliffe, Legal Operations Manager, TransCanada Pipelines, Ltd.
• Charisma Starr, Legal IT Manager, Exelon

Download The New Law Department Professional

Reuters is reporting that President-elect Donald Trump is nearing a settlement of about $20 million in fraud lawsuits relating to Trump University, a person familiar with the matter said on Friday.

Some former students of the now-defunct school claim they were they were lured by false promises into paying up to $35,000 to learn Trump’s real estate investing “secrets” from his “hand-picked” instructors.

Reporter Karen Freifeld writes that sources tell her there are three lawsuits relating to Trump University: two class actions in California and a case brought by New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman. All would be covered in the possible settlement. One of the cases, in U.S. District Court in San Diego, is scheduled to begin Nov. 28.

Read the Reuters article.