“The state Public Utilities Commission on Thursday approved a $1.9 billion settlement with PG&E that allows it to get credit for wildfire prevention spending while at the same time escape being fined $200 million over regulatory violations stemming from two years of massive wildfires,” reports Jaxon Van Derbeken in NBC Bay Area’s Investigative.

“The unanimous vote came after PG&E challenged the findings of a regulatory judge who urged that the company be fined on top of having to pay a total of $1.9 billion in improvements and upgrades.”

“In advocating for the no-fine deal, Commissioner Clifford Rechtschaffen reminded his colleagues about the devastation associated with 15 fires tied to the utility’s equipment in 2017 and 2018. ‘For the victims of the fire … the damage, the pain and the trauma is ongoing,’ he said.”

Read the article.

“Four of America’s biggest banks have been accused of harming thousands of coronavirus-hit small businesses by unfairly prioritizing emergency loan requests from large customers to earn fatter fees,” reports Matt Egan in CNN Business.

“BAC, Wells Fargo, JPMorgan Chase and US Bank were sued Sunday for allegedly failing to process forgivable loans in the $349 billion Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) on a first-come first-served basis.”

“Each bank ‘concealed from the public that it was reshuffling the PPP applications it received and prioritizing the applications that would make the bank the most money,’ each of the four lawsuits said.”

“As a result of this ‘dishonest and deplorable behavior,’ the lawsuit said thousands of small businesses ‘were left with nothing’ when PPP ran out of money earlier this month.”

“The legal action was brought by a range of California small businesses, including a frozen yogurt shop, law firms, an auto repair company and a cybersecurity firm.”

Read the article.

“The Unites States District Court for the Northern District of California recently found that 10b-5 litigation regarding Elon Musk’s tweets could move forward after reviewing a motion to dismiss in In Re Tesla Inc. Securities Litigation,” discusses Steve Quinlivan in Dodd-Frank’s Litigation blog.

“Mr. Musk famously tweeted ‘Am considering taking Tesla private at $420. Funding secured.’ Mr. Musk later responded to comments related to his tweet and also posted new tweets on the subject. Tesla’s Senior Director of Investor Relations received three e-mails inquiring about Mr. Musk’s tweets. One response given was ‘I can only say that the first Tweet clearly stated that ‘financing is secured.’ Yes, there is a firm offer.'”

“The Court rejected the defendants’ argument that the tweet was not false and misleading. Among other things, the Court found even if the entire tweet is deemed an opinion about the future funding, that would not insulate the tweet from scrutiny; a statement of opinion can be deemed misleading if it conveys facts, and this is especially so when the opinion contains highly specific facts—e.g., here, the specific price of $420. Because Mr. Musk, the CEO of Tesla, included the highly-specific price of $420 at which shares would be bought for the going-private transaction, and because his tweet followed with “funding secured,” a reasonable investor would have interpreted it as something more than a speculative amorphous opinion about future possibilities. Instead, it can be read as implying a more concrete state of affairs.”

Read the article.

“After a public dispute with the White House about exporting N-95 masks, 3M is turning to trademark law to help combat impressions that it is price-gouging at home … reported earlier this week on 3M’s lawsuit against Performance Supply, a New Jersey company that offered to sell 3M masks to New York City for 500-600% of 3M’s list price. Shortly after filing that complaint, 3M also sued a Utah company for similar activities in the Eastern District of California,” reports Kimberly Maynard in Frankfurt Kurnit Klein + Selz’s IP & Media Law Updates.

“In the second complaint, 3M alleges that Rx2Live, LLC contacted Community Medical Centers, Inc. (“CMC”), a healthcare provider based in Fresno, offering to sell 3M-branded N95 masks at 400-500% of the 3M list price (with a minimum purchase of 10 million masks).  Rx2Live invoked the 3M name multiple times, stating that the masks were “direct from 3M” and that “3M requires payment in full before order can be placed.”  According to 3M, neither of these statements is true.  The case is 3M Company v. Rx2Live, LLC, 1:20-cv-00523.”

“As with the Performance Supply lawsuit, 3M does not allege that Rx2Live sold counterfeit products, placed the 3M marks or a colorable imitation thereof on its own masks, or sold “gray market” goods (i.e., 3M-branded products manufactured for sale outside the U.S. and improperly imported and sold in the U.S.).  It is unclear from the complaints if the defendants are reselling authentic 3M masks they previously purchased, albeit at an unconscionable price.  While price-gouging is illegal, it is not prohibited by the Lanham Act.  In fact, the first-sale doctrine expressly allows consumers to resell unaltered, branded products and to advertise them as such.”

Read the article.

“Biglaw is an industry-specific nickname for high-revenue law firms with large headcounts. It can also refer to smaller firms that pay their lawyers a market rate salary, or even a medium-sized outfit with wide, international reach and notoriety,” writes Joshua Holt in Law Fuel’s blog.

“All of these types of firms are typically headquartered in major US cities, like Los Angeles, New York, and Chicago, with multiple branches in smaller markets. And, most notably, lawyers who work in Biglaw can expect to be paid based on the Cravath scale.”

“The Cravath Scale, an offshoot of the Cravath system, is named after Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, the firm which is generally considered the authority on setting associate salaries. Its compensatory functions include factors like the number of years out of law school and particular law school classes, among others.”

“Lawyers on this pay scale not only earn the same salary but can also anticipate receiving the same annual market bonus. Based on the lockstep and closely monitored structure of the scale, if one firm offers an associate a higher salary, other firms tend to follow suit. But while this scale is based on a platform of consistency, changes have been experienced throughout the years.”

Read the article.

“The Supreme Court’s announcement this week that it will hold oral arguments via teleconference for the first time in its history has a small group of America’s top attorneys prepping for the most important phone calls of their careers,” writes Tucker Higgins in CNBC’s Politics.

“The court said that it will hear 10 arguments over the first two weeks in May, including blockbuster disputes over the Electoral College and whether President Donald Trump can keep his tax records shielded from investigators. ”

Read the article.

“The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware approved … a $1.7 million settlement agreement in the bankruptcy case of Springdale-based nanotechnology manufacturer NanoMech Inc. that will clear its former CEO of any wrongdoing,” reports Jeff Della Rosa in Talk Business & Politics.

“U.S. Bankruptcy Judge John Dorsey approved the agreement between NanoMech, its directors and officers and New York-based lender Michaelson Capital Partners. The directors and officers in the agreement include all existing and former directors and officers of NanoMech, including former chairman and CEO Jim Phillips, Ajay Malshe, Deborah Wince-Smith, Michael Easterly, Arpana Verma, Wyatt Watkins and Ben Waisbren.”

“NanoMech’s directors and officers will have their insurer pay $1.7 million to NanoMech, and the company will pay $1.68 million to Michaelson, the agreement shows. Also, NanoMech will release all pending claims against Phillips and Conner & Winters LLP, and they will be dismissed with prejudice.”

Read the article.

“As mentioned in previous articles, the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has substantially impacted the legal profession. Economic issues have affected the need for legal services, which has forced law firms to reduce headcount, lower salaries, and take other efforts to weather the storm. However, based on my own experience, some practice areas seem to be expanding in the current environment, and other practice areas are struggling because of COVID-19,” writes Jordan Rothman in Above the Law’s Biglaw.

“If attorneys have a good sense of the practice areas that are expanding and contracting in the current environment, they can best weather the storm of COVID-19.”

Read the article.

“Coal companies owned by Gov. Jim Justice and his family have settled with federal agencies to satisfy more than $5 million in unpaid penalties for violations of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act,” reports Brad McElhinny in MetroNews the Voice of West Virginia.

“Although it’s a settlement, the federal officials say the 23 named defendants agreed to pay the full amounts of the assessed civil penalties, plus interest and penalties.”

“Federal officials sued almost two dozen Justice companies almost a year ago over millions of dollars in unpaid safety violation penalties dating back years.”

Read the article.

“LeafedOut, formerly known as LeafedIn, announced a resolution to their intellectual property dispute with the professional networking site “Linkedin” that correlated with their complete rebrand to Leafedout as of the start of this year. This press release signifies the end of all references to the former brand name within the LeafedOut organization,” reports Ellie Alexander in Reported Times.

“LeafedOut emboldened even further by its brand identity upgrade, continues on as one of the most disruptive and popular cannabis tech companies in the industry today. However, unlike the industry standard, it’s management believes that putting this settlement behind them as well as moving forward with a very aggressive and ambitious roadmap for 2020 in terms of their product offering will allow them to continue their exponential revenue and user growth while providing even more value across multiple verticals for its community. LeafedOut set itself apart from other rising businesses in the canna community with its focus on social responsibility, marijuana activism, and focus on veteran and patient rights.”

Read the article.

“In yet another opinion applying the Florida Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Engle v. Liggett Group, Inc., 945 So. 2d 1246 (Fla. 2006), the Eleventh Circuit affirmed denial of motions for judgment as a matter of law against R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company and Philip Morris USA Inc. in a published opinion upholding multi-million dollar jury verdicts against both defendants,” posts Keith Emanuel in Eversheds Sutherland’s 11th Circuit Business Blog.

“Plaintiff Kerrivan became an addicted serial smoker at an early age, suffered increasingly serious medical diagnoses as a result, and made repeated unsuccessful attempts to quit. He eventually quit smoking but has required an oxygen tank to assist his breathing ever since. After the jury awarded $15.8 million in compensatory damages and $25.3 million in punitive damages on various fraud and conspiracy claims, the tobacco companies renewed motions for judgment as a matter of law and filed a motion for new trial or remittitur, arguing that the compensatory damages award was excessive, that the punitive damages award was unconstitutional, and that the evidence of reliance was insufficient to support the fraudulent concealment and conspiracy claims. The appeal stemmed from the district court’s denial of such motions.”

Read the article.

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals is ruling on the Dish Networks $280M settlement reports Eric J. Troutman in TCPA World.

“The appellate court concluded that the district court made no material legal errors save one– in assessing damages the Court started with the Plaintiff’s ability to pay and worked backward. The Court determined that proper constitutional analysis starts with the amount of harm actually caused, and then application of a multiplier.”

“The appellate court concluded that the district court’s award amounted to $4.00 per violation and suggested that if the harm caused per call was $1.00 than the judgment would certainly be proper. But it remanded for the lower court to assess the damage of an unwanted call (according to one expert the cost per unwanted call is as low as 6.8 cents, which would make a proper award no higher than 72 cents a call using a 9 times multipler.)”

Read the article.

“General Motors has reached a $120 million settlement with owners who claimed that their vehicles lost value because of defective ignition switches, which have been linked to 124 deaths,” reported in Reuters’ AutoBlog.

“The preliminary settlement was filed on Friday night with the federal court in Manhattan and requires approval by U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman. It would resolve the last major piece of litigation stemming from ignition switches that could cause GM vehicles to stall and prevent airbags from deploying.”

“The automaker denied liability in agreeing to settle, court papers show.”

Read the article.

“Top in-house lawyers are getting their compensation cut along with other executive officers as the new coronavirus causes widespread economic distress,” reports Brian Baxter in Bloomberg Law’s Corporate Governance.

“Marriott International Inc., the Cheesecake Factory Inc., and other companies have announced plans to cut pay for top executives. Bloomberg Law recently reported that gaming company Accel Entertainment Inc.’s leadership is going even further, foregoing 100% of their pay until it hopes normal business operations resume next month.”

“Veta Richardson, president and CEO of the Association of Corporation Counsel, said that she can’t recall another time when executive pay cuts have become so extensive.”

Read the article.

“The Eleventh Circuit has clarified the scope of the ‘local event exception’ to the federal-court jurisdiction over ‘mass actions’ conferred by the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”), holding that claims by former foundry employees against manufacturers and distributors of products used at the foundry are not within the exception,” posted Valerie Sanders in Eversheds Sutherland’s 11 Circuit Business Blog.

“The plaintiffs in the case are 230 former workers at a now-closed Alabama foundry.  They worked in different jobs at different times, but all claim that they were harmed by exposure to hazardous chemicals during their employment.  The defendants are unrelated companies that manufactured (and in some cases distributed) chemical products used at the foundry, including sands, resins, gases, and other substances of various formulations.  The plaintiffs’ complaint, originally filed in state court, includes several claims, all arising from the allegation that the ‘normal and foreseeable’ use of the defendants’ products at the foundry caused the ‘formation and release of hazardous and carcinogenic chemical substances,’ which harmed them.”

Read the article.

“Two federal appellate courts published notable opinions on the intersection between personal jurisdiction jurisprudence and Rule 23 class action procedure. The defendants in both cases face nationwide class actions, and each argued that the Supreme Court’s 2017 decision in Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California, 137 S. Ct. 1773, precludes district courts from exercising specific jurisdiction over the claims of unnamed putative class members from other states. The majority of a D.C. Circuit panel decided to resolve the appeal before it on alternate grounds. But in dissent, Judge Silberman explained why he understands Bristol-Myers’s holding to extend to nationwide class actions brought in federal court. The next day, a unanimous Seventh Circuit panel refused to extend Bristol-Myers to federal class actions,” reports Michael D. Leffel and Aaron R. Wegrzyn in Foley & Lardner’s Insights.

“The Supreme Court’s Bristol-Myers decision addresses state courts’ jurisdiction over the claims of non-resident plaintiffs in mass tort actions. The Court held that a California state court lacked jurisdiction over the defendant with respect to nonresident plaintiffs’ claims because the defendant was not incorporated in California and did not have its principal place of business in California (thus defeating general jurisdiction) and because the claims lacked an “adequate link” to California (thus defeating specific jurisdiction). Following that ruling, district courts across the country have split on whether to extend the logic of Bristol-Myers from state mass tort actions to nationwide class actions. ”

Read the article.

“Former Wells Fargo & Co. general counsel C. Allen Parker Jr. took home outsized pay of more than $9.6 million last year thanks to his elevation to interim CEO,” reports Brian Baxter in Bloomberg Law’s Banking Law News.

“Parker’s compensation is all the more notable since Wells Fargo’s top in-house lawyer has rarely, if ever, been one of the highest-paid executives at the company, according to three former lawyers for the bank.”

“The bulk of Parker’s pay—approximately $8.3 million, including a $2 million grant of restricted stock—came from his service last year as Wells Fargo’s interim CEO from March through October, according to a 2019 proxy statement filed by the company March 16.”

“The proxy, which also revealed that the bank clawed back a $15 million stock award to former CEO Timothy Sloan, came less than a week after its hire of a new general counsel in Ellen Patterson, the soon-to-be former in-house legal chief at Toronto-Dominion Bank.”

Read the article.

“PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) has agreed to settle a class action lawsuit alleging age discrimination in hiring by paying out $11.625 million, an amount that is not even a blip on the radar screen of a firm that reports annual revenues in excess of $41 billion,” reports Patricia Barnes in Forbes’ Leadership.

“Moreover, PwC seems somewhat tentative with respect to its commitment to change the hiring practices the plaintiffs have argued since 2016 were grossly discriminatory to older workers.”

“Both sides released a carefully worded press release earlier this month stating that PwC has agreed ‘to enhance certain of its recruiting procedures geared toward further attracting qualified older applicants for entry level jobs.’”

Read the article.

“New court filings reveal that the Department of Defense wants to ‘reconsider certain aspects’ of its decision to award Microsoft with the coveted $10 billion Joint Enterprise Defense Infrastructure contract,” reports Taylor Soper in GeekWire.

“The latest legal development is part of Amazon’s protest over the prestigious cloud computing deal, known as JEDI. Amazon Web Services sued the federal government after Microsoft emerged as the surprise winner of the JEDI contract last year.”

“In the new filing, a motion for voluntary remand, the DoD said that it ‘wishes to reconsider its award decision in response to the other technical challenges presented by AWS.’ The DoD is asking for 120 days to assess the matter. It wants to specifically examine one issue related to ‘online marketplace offerings.'”

Read the article.

“The Am Law 50 firm moved its headquarters to Philadelphia’s Cira Centre in 2005, taking advantage of a tax break program that Pennsylvania offers businesses to move into developments in formerly run-down areas. Since taking up residence in Cira Centre, Dechert’s paid virtually no state or local business taxes in exchange for Dechert’s role in making the area an attractive business destination,” notes Joe Patrice in Above the Law’s Biglaw.

“But the program expired in 2018, so when the Keystone Opportunity Zone program eyed a new tax-free area in Schuylkill Yards, Dechert walked up and asked to move there too.”

“There’s nothing in the law to say companies can’t hop from zone to zone to remain permanently tax-free, and when authorities denied Dechert’s request to continue not paying its taxes, the firm took the government to court.”

Read the article.