Jeffrey M. Griffin has joined McDonald Sanders of Fort Worth as an associate attorney, the firm announced.

Griffin received his bachelor’s degree in business administration from Texas Tech University in 2011 with a concentration in energy commerce and oil and gas. In 2014, he earned his law degree from Texas Tech University School of Law, where he was a member of the Energy Law Interest Group. His practice focuses on the areas of business transactions, real estate and oil and gas.

“As our firm grows, it is important that we add exceptional lawyers to our ranks. Jeff fits that bill and we are excited about his future with our firm and his contributions to our clients,” said Rick Sorenson, president of McDonald Sanders.

A Fort Worth attorney who helped represent residents of Johnson, Tarrant and Dallas counties in a lawsuit against Chesapeake Energy and Total E&P USA is suing his co-counsel for a third of the legal fees from the nearly $53 million settlement, reports The Dallas Morning News.

Jim Ward of Wardlaw Services accuses Dan McDonald and his Fort Worth firm of breaching a 2014 agreement on how settlement proceeds would be handled and ignoring his contribution to the winning case.

“Oklahoma City-based Chesapeake and Total, an American subsidiary of a French firm, agreed in May to settle claims that they underpaid royalties to 13,000 plaintiffs in the Barnett Shale,” reports Austin Huguelet.

Huguelet explains: “In his lawsuit, Ward claims that while McDonald received ‘the recognition and spotlight’ as lead counsel in the case, the Wardlaw team spent two years assembling the research that served as a ‘blueprint for victory.'”

Read the article.

Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher has posted an on-demand webinar discussing the rise of the U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) enforcement efforts, the expansion in the scope of industries targeted and the level of penalties imposed, and the targeting of financial products that the CFPB has deemed cybersecurity risks.

On its website, the firm says the webinar covers challenges the CFPB raises for compliance professionals and in-house litigation counsel.

Panelists experienced in bank regulatory, white collar defense and investigations, securities litigation and investigations, and cybersecurity discuss these and other developments at the CFPB as well as approaches for navigating this uncertain regulatory and legal landscape.

Watch the on-demand webinar.

A.M. Best and Best’s Directories of Insurance Professionals will host a webinar to explore the legal and insurance issues surrounding lead injuries.

The one-hour complimentary event will begin at 2 p.m. EDT on Wednesday, August 3.

Lead was once used in a variety of construction materials, especially paint. Lead poisoning can be disastrous, if not deadly, the company says on its website. A panel of legal and insurance professionals will discuss the sources of lead injury claims, developing liability issues and the industry impact of lead-based claims.

Panelists include:

• Phil Pizzuto, partner; Lindabury, McCormick, Estabrook & Cooper, P.C.;
• Eileen Buholtz, attorney/firm member; Connors, Corcoran & Buholtz, PLLC;
• Brian Hinton, attorney; Anderson Crawley & Burke, pllc; and
• Ken Gillespie, litigation specialist; Builders Mutual Insurance Company.

Best’s Directories’ Managing Editor John Czuba will moderate the discussion.

Register for the webinar.

The international furor over the online game Pokémon Go has sent countless children and adults scurrying through neighborhoods, parks and unfamiliar areas in pursuit of virtual game characters found only online.

While Pokémon Go is being credited for encouraging more public conversation and promoting regular physical exercise, Dallas attorney Rogge Dunn says there are many ways that a Pokémon pursuit can land a player at the courthouse or, worse, the jailhouse. Although Pokémon Go manufacturer Nintendo requires players to accept terms of service that prevent them from taking the company to court unless they send an opt-out notice, he says there are no such free passes for those who play the game.

In a blog post, Androvett Legal Media and Marketing quotes Dunn:

“While Pokémon Go may blur the line between fantasy and reality, there are real legal consequences if you step outside the law as a player,” Dunn says. “If you park your car in the street, expect a parking ticket. If you’re trespassing on someone’s property, expect to get arrested. If you cause a wreck while speeding toward a popular Pokémon location, you better be prepared for jail.”

An adjunct professor in Southern Methodist University’s MBA program, Dunn notes one case from his classroom where a radio station promotion was blamed for causing a serious car crash after urging listeners to show up at a particular location. The same scenario played out in Fort Worth roughly 20 years ago when a disc jockey at a country radio station claimed he’d used $5 and $10 bills as bookmarks in the fiction section at the public library. News reports detailed how people overran the library in search of the money, damaging thousands of books in the process.

“A lot of adults are being very smart about playing Pokémon Go with their children so they can make sure everyone is safe. But there are just as many instances where kids and grown-ups alike are going into unsafe areas or entering strangers’ properties,” says Dunn. “Particularly in states like ours where a lot of people have guns in their homes, I fear that a Pokémon Go player may end up being shot or killed before a homeowner realizes that they’re simply playing a video game. If that happens, you can expect both our criminal courts and civil courts will get involved.”

Article source

Two former executives of Acclarent Inc, a medical device company bought by Johnson & Johnson in 2010, were convicted on Wednesday by a U.S. jury on charges of promoting a product for an unapproved use, Reuters is reporting.

Prosecutors said former Acclarent Chief Executive William Facteau and former Vice President of Sales Patrick Fabian were found guilty in federal court in Boston of 10 misdemeanor counts of violating the U.S. Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. The counts each carry a maximum prison sentence of one year.

But the jury acquitted the two defendants of felony charges of wire fraud and conspiracy, finding they did not act with intent to defraud or mislead.

“In an indictment unsealed last April, federal prosecutors said that beginning in 2006 or earlier, Facteau, 47, and Fabian, 49, promoted Acclarent’s Relieva Stratus Microflow Spacer device to deliver steroid medications to patients’ sinuses, though it was only approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for keeping sinuses open,” reports Brendan Pierson for Reuters.

Read the article.

Bloomberg Law is reporting that JPMorgan Chase & Co. is expected to settle later this year with the U.S. Justice Department and Securities and Exchange Commission to end a three-year probe into whether it inappropriately hired the children of Chinese decision-makers to win business, according to people familiar with the matter.

The deal could cost JPMorgan about $200 million in the settlements over its hiring practices, according to one of the sources.

“At issue in the inquiry is whether the bank hired relatives of influential Chinese officials or executives of state-run enterprises to help obtain business or even as a reward, and whether that ran afoul of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977, which makes it illegal to provide pay or benefits to a foreign government official,” explain Bloomberg’s Matt Robinson and Keri Geiger. “The law also specifies what records must be kept to ensure compliance.”

Read the article.

The U.S. Department of Justice has filed lawsuits to block the proposed mergers of four of the nation’s five biggest health insurers, reports The New York Times.

The proposed mergers involve Aetna and Humana, and Anthem and Cigna.

U.S. Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch said the proposed mergers “would leave much of the multitrillion-dollar health insurance industry in the hands of three mammoth insurance companies.”

“If these mergers were to take place, the competition among insurers that has pushed them to provide lower premiums, higher-quality care and better benefits would be eliminated,” she said.

“The companies responded by vowing, in varying degrees, to fight the government’s challenge,” report Leslie Picker and Reed Abelson. “Aetna, which had hoped to gain an advantage by being the first to reach a deal, aggressively defended its proposed merger, which it contended was different from the larger Anthem-Cigna deal that followed.”

Read the article.

Littler Mendelson will present a webinar about maintaining compliance under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act as it concerns protection of employees, both legal and illegal immigrants.

The hour-long webinar will be Wednesday, August 31, at 1 p.m. Eastern time.

In a recent undocumented worker case, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the EEOC has the authority to investigate claims made by both legal and illegal immigrants, the firm said on its website. This decision has heightened employers’ attention as to who in their workforce is protected under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and added to an already complex system of compliance standards set by the EEOC and OSC.

Topics will include:

• What changes do employers and in-house counsel need to be aware of?
• Who in your workforce is protected?
• What are the common pitfalls that lead to discrimination claims?
• What procedures can you implement to reduce legal risk?

Register for the webinar.

One of the most common business disputes involves a breach of contract, where lawsuits are filed because one party believes another party has failed to deliver on the terms of a written – or sometimes oral – contract, writes Romy Jurado in a blog article for  Jurado & Farshchian.

She discusses several factors to consider when faced with a breach of contract dispute, including statute of limitations has expired, fraud in the inducement, duress, impossibility of performance, and mutual or unilateral mistakes.

“Typically, most business people do not want to be in a situation where they feel compelled to breach a contract before the end of its term,” she writes. “Being upfront with the other party may relieve you from liability for bad faith or malicious dealing, and it may preclude the possibility of having to settle the matter through litigation.”

Read the article.

The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals recently addressed an issue that frequently arises in the non-compete context: what happens when a company buys the assets of another and then tries to enforce non-compete agreements?

Michael Elkon of Fisher & Phillips LLP explains in the article: Two employees worked as mobile x-ray technicians for Ozark Mobile Imaging. Both signed non-compete agreements saying they could not work in the mobile diagnostic business in a set geographic area for a two-year period after the end of their employment. Mobilex later bought Ozark in an asset purchase, and both employees declined offers to work for Mobilex, citing inferior terms of employment, and instead took positions with a competitor. Mobilex filed suit against the ex-employees for breach of contract, but the district court granted summary judgment to Greenbaum and Tabanag, finding that because they had not consented to the assignment of their contracts at the time of the asset purchase.

The appellate court reversed, providing a reminder that “it is important to pay attention during the sale process to ensure that there will be no issues with the purchaser enforcing the seller’s restrictive covenant rights with employees,” Elkon writes.

Read the article.

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals had to decide a case in which the parties disagreed as to whether there was even a contract, raising the obvious question is whether there is a document with both parties’ signatures. But this is not always definitive, explains Stephen M. Proctor in a Risk Management Update for Masuda Funai.

C.G. Schmidt, Inc. was a general contractor managing part of the construction of an 18-story office building in downtown Milwaukee for $52 million, explains Proctor. It negotiated with Permasteelisa North America to supply a custom outer covering for weatherproofing and aesthetics and a substantial part of the project. “CGS won the bid for the building relying on PNA’s bid. But PNA backed out. CGS claimed that it had an agreement with PNA for the curtainwall and relied on PNA’s Subcontract when it submitted the bid. CGS sued PNA for breach of contract and promissory estoppel,” Proctor explains.

It’s clear there was no formal written contract with both CGS’s and PNA’s signature, but this did not prevent CGS from prevailing. In the end, CGS did not prevail, but it raised some arguments that the judge discussed at length.

Read the article.

In St. John’s Holdings, LLC v. Two Electronics, LLC, the Massachusetts’ Land Court concluded (in what appears to be a case of first impression) that a string of text messages can constitute a writing under the Statute of Frauds sufficient to bind the parties to sell certain property, writes Matthew DeVries on Burr & Forman LLP‘s Best Practices Construction Law blog.

DeVries explains in the article: The transaction involved included four drafts of a letter of intent from Buyer to Seller for purchase of a piece of property, none of which were signed by Buyer. Ultimately, Seller’s agent texted Buyer’s agent, asking him to sign the letter and provide a deposit. About two hours later, after Buyer signed the letter and provided a deposit, Buyer’s agent sent a text to Seller’s agent saying he had signed the letter of intent. The two agents met later that day to deliver and accept the letter and deposit, and the seller’s agent sent a text saying the Seller was unavailable and would respond the next day. But it was determined later that the Seller accepted a third party’s offer to purchase the property at the same time, and refused to execute and deliver the letter of intent from the original Buyer.

“The court concluded that the text message from Seller’s agent was a writing that, read in the context of the email exchanges between the parties, contained sufficient terms to state a binding contract between Seller and Buyer. In addition, the court found that the final text message contained a valid electronic signature to be ‘signed’ within the meaning of the law,” DeVries explains.

Read the article.

Bloomberg Law has drilled down through Securities and Exchange Commission documents to see how the compensation of 30 of the highest paid general counsel compares to the pay for other top-ranking executives in their corporations.

The analysis found that 10 of the GCs were the fourth highest paid at their company, meaning less well-compensated than at least three other executives. “Then, in order, eight of the GCs were the third highest paid exec at their company, seven were in the number five spot, two were the second highest paid and so on,” wrote Gabe Friedman.

Thomas Mason was the only GC from the list ranked as the highest paid executive at his company. Mason’s whose title changed in December 2015 from a vice president to executive vice president and general counsel of Energy Transfer Equity, a Dallas-based natural gas storage and transportation company, the report says.

Read the article.

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority fined Prudential Annuities Distributors $950,000 on Tuesday for failing to prevent the fraudulent withdrawal of nearly $1.3 million from an elderly annuity holder’s account by her financial officer, according to a Reuters report.

Financial sales assistant Travis Wetzel was convicted of wire fraud and money laundering in 2015 and sentenced to 42 months in prison for forging annuity withdrawal requests on his 82-year-old client’s account.

“In its decision, FINRA said Prudential’s internal systems flagged 114 fraudulent withdrawals — up to five a month — that Wetzel made between July 2010 and September 2012 to wire money from the client’s account to one in his wife’s name,” reports Elizabeth Dilts.

Read the article.

Image by Michael Vadon

Chris Christie gave his best audition to become Donald Trump’s attorney general Tuesday, putting Hillary Clinton on mock trial before a riled-up audience at the Republican National Convention, reports The New York Daily News.

The New Jersey governor relied on his experience as a former U.S. attorney “to present a case on the facts against Hillary Rodham Clinton,” courtroom-style, encouraging the captivated crowd to act as a “jury of her peers.”

The report by Adam Edelman says Christie made the GOP-loved case against Clinton’s “failures” in Libya, Syria, Nigeria, Iran and China, following each argument with the question: “Guilty or not guilty?” The crowd responded to each question with chants of “Guilty” and “Lock her up.”

Read the article.

By Keli Swan
Scott & Scott, LLP

In an effort to enforce the copyrights of its members, Business|The Software Alliance (BSA) offers the potential for monetary rewards to any informant that shares information related to software copyright infringement against a company. Many of our clients are facing audits because an informant has turned them in.

Even if a company is able to demonstrate that its software is properly licensed, it is difficult to hold the informant accountable for the time and expense incurred as a result of the audit because the BSA protects the identity of its informants.

There are a few tips on how to deal with disgruntled former employees seeking revenge through a BSA reward.

1) Prevention. In many instances prevention simply is not possible because a company learns of the potential informant at the same time it receives an audit demand from the BSA. However, if you have not yet received an audit request, a company should manage its network to protect against potential claims.

Lock down the network. Limiting the individuals who are able to access, download, or install software, scanning tools or any other information to or from the network is an essential safeguard against creating potential copyright infringement claims. First, by preventing downloads, you are able to control what is installed on the network and limit it to only licensed software. Second, you can prevent any potential informants from stealing raw data from the network and delivering it to the BSA in an effort to obtain a reward. Third, limiting access to administrators ensures that an employee cannot create a compliance problem on his or her way out in an effort to damage the company.

2) Recourse. Sometimes a company may have a suspicion about who the informant is based on the timing of an acrimonious departure of a former employee and the initial audit letter. However, the BSA will not release the name of the individual. Even in litigation, it could be difficult to obtain the informant’s identity. However, if the BSA relied on specific information relating to its claims, it may be forced to identify the informant. The question remains: what is a company’s recourse?

Employee Non-disclosure Agreement. If the informant signed a non-disclosure agreement, it may be possible to pursue the individual for breaching that agreement, depending on the language of the agreement. However, even if this action is ultimately successful, a company should be mindful of the cardinal rule of litigation: never sue a poor person. Aside from the satisfaction of holding an individual accountable, the company may never receive damages or attorney’s fees.

Request Informant Not Be Rewarded. Once an audit is resolved, if a company believes that the informant may have been directly responsible for intentionally or negligently creating the compliance gap, the company should request that the informant not receive a reward. Although the BSA’s attorney typically indicates that he or she has no control over the reward, the BSA may take the information into consideration. It is important to wait to make this request after the audit is complete and a settlement is reached.

3) Mitigation. The best way to prevent current employees from turning into informants is to ensure that software compliance is a priority.

Software Asset Management. Following the audit, companies should consider implementing a comprehensive software asset management plan that includes procurement, installation, live management, internal audits, and license maintenance. Ensuring that all software is properly licensed at all times will save significant time and potential penalties from false claims. It is essential that a company maintain accurate records for all software purchases regardless of the age of the product. A plan to manage software compliance in conjunction with appropriate security protocols to prevent individuals from accessing the network or downloading or installing software is the best way to mitigate potential copyright infringement claims.

Buchalter Nemer has added three counsel to its Los Angeles office. Terese A. Mosher Beluris joined as of counsel in the healthcare practice, Stephen J. Strauss joined as of counsel in the intellectual property practice and Michael Zerman joined as special counsel in the real estate practice.

“Our firm is in a strategic growth period right now and I’m pleased that our full-service offering and entrepreneurial spirit was the right fit for Terese, Stephen and Michael,” said Adam Bass, President and Chief Executive Officer of Buchalter Nemer. “I have no doubt that they will contribute in significant ways to the healthcare, IP and real estate practices and I’m excited to see their respective practices grow at the firm.”

The firm’s release continues:

Terese A. Mosher Beluris joins Buchalter Nemer as of counsel from McDermott Will & Emery where she was a Partner. In her practice, Terese regularly litigates actions on behalf of health care services plans, management services organizations and providers involved in commercial and managed care disputes. In the managed care arena, Terese has litigated putative class actions and other actions on behalf of health plans, health care providers and intermediaries. She has been lead trial counsel in significant matters concerning the imposition of liability upon health care service plans following the default of multiple system operators (MSOs) and other intermediaries, the defense of pharmaceutical utilization review under the precepts of California Business and Professions Code Section 2056 and alleged violations of due process or fair procedure.

She earned her J.D. from Loyola Law School and her B.A., magna cum laude, from Tufts University.

Stephen J. Strauss joined Buchalter Nemer as Of Counsel from Fulwider Patton LLP where he was a Partner. For over 30 years, Stephen has specialized in domestic and international trademark, copyright and unfair competition matters, including licensing, Internet domain name disputes and litigation. He has prosecuted over two thousand U.S. and foreign trademark and service mark applications, and won over 60 UDRP decisions. Stephen is known for his representation of a number of internationally recognized celebrities, sports personalities, recording artists, chefs, authors and media and entertainment companies. He also represents a wide range of diverse clients including restaurants, banks and financial institutions, clothing and toy manufacturers, magazine and book publishers.

He earned his J.D. from Southwestern Law School and his B.A. and M.A. in Political Science from American University.

Michael Zerman joined Buchalter Nemer as Special Counsel from Zuber Lawler & Del Duca LLP where he was a Partner. Michael focuses his practice on real estate transactions, including purchase & sale, mortgage financing, leasing, and construction agreements. He represents pension funds, developers, financial institutions, government entities, REITs, retail chains and health care organizations and regularly handles matters related to office buildings, industrial properties, shopping centers, apartment properties, hotels, pro-sports facilities and mass-transit sites.

He earned his J.D. from the University of Arizona, cum laude, and his B.A. from Wesleyan University.

Practical Law will present a complimentary webinar Tuesday, July 26, 1-2:30 p.m. EDT, on evolving cybersecurity issues for banks.

In a release, the company said cybersecurity poses important and time-sensitive challenges to banks and will continue to do so into the foreseeable future. In addition to regulatory and compliance risks, cybersecurity also poses litigation and reputational risks. Bank counsel need to be at the forefront of cybersecurity to ensure that their bank’s directors, management, and employees are aware of the challenges and the measures that need to be taken.

Speakers will be Heath Tarbert and William White of Allen & Overy and Jeremy Estabrooks of Practical Law.

Topics will include:

• What cybersecurity entails and the types of cyber threats facing banks.
• Federal laws and regulations addressing cybersecurity.
• Federal regulatory guidance and resources.
• State laws and regulations addressing cybersecurity.
• What cybersecurity issues bank counsel should currently be thinking about.

A brief Q&A session will follow.

Register for the webinar.

A widening criminal probe casts new light on a bitter defeat hedge fund activist Bill Ackman suffered in his 2009 bid for board seats at U.S. retailer Target Corp, Reuters is reporting.

Target for years has paid proxy solicitor Georgeson LLC to track the votes of its top investors, writes Ross Kerber. Now five current and former Georgeson employees have been charged with fraud for using bribes to get advance voting information on proxy battles.

“The same tactics cited in the criminal complaint were used to help Target defeat Ackman in 2009, according to a former Georgeson employee turned whistleblower. Ackman, who runs hedge fund Pershing Square Capital Management, failed in the high-stakes battle to install his own slate of directors at Target and change its business direction,” according to the report.

The whistleblower told Reuters that he told regulators about alleged bribes that were being used to gain advance access on how investors were voting.

Read the article.