Apple and Qualcomm have dueled on three continents over the division of billions of dollars of smartphone profits and even how much consumers pay for their phones but as a trial on the issue began Tuesday, the two companies said they had essentially made up.

The San Francisco Chronicle reports:

The companies, one the maker of iPhones and the other one of the largest providers of mobile chips, said they had agreed to dismiss all litigation between them worldwide. They added that they had reached a six-year agreement for Cupertino’s Apple to pay royalties on Qualcomm’s patents, which was effective as of April 1.

Read the SF Chronicle article.

The outcome of a three-day class action trial accusing the nutritional supplement marketer ViSalus of violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act hinged on the testimony of the named plaintiff, reports Reuters.

Jurors heard Lori Wakefield testify about four automated calls from ViSalus on her home phone line, according to Reuters’ Alison Frankel.

Jurors believed Wakefield and found that the calls violated the TCPA, and that the class Wakefield represents had received a grand total of 1.85 million improper robocalls. Their verdict exposes ViSalus to statutory damages of about $925 million, which could be trebled.

Read the Reuters article.

Dykema announced that a case the firm was involved in was named the winner of the Litigation of the Year – Cartel Defence at the Global Competition Review’s 9th annual GCR Awards. The award recognizes the decision from the Eastern District of Michigan denying class certification in Automotive Parts Antitrust Litigation in which Dykema served as Counsel to AB SKF, a leading Swedish-based bearings technology provider.

In a release, the firm said Dykema attorneys involved in the matter include Howard Iwrey, Cale Johnson, Cody Rockey and Brian Moore. The decision by the court was the first certification ruling in long-running multidistrict litigation (MDL) involving 44 separate lead cases alleging price-fixing and bid-rigging against dozens of Tier 1 suppliers of 44 separate parts.

In its ruling, the court ruled first that the direct purchase plaintiffs (aftermarket distributors of bearings impacted by one type of alleged conspiracy) failed to demonstrate that their claims were typical of other putative class members (which included OEMs allegedly impacted by other types of conspiracies) or that they could adequately represent the interest of all putative class members.

The firm’s release said the court also ruled that the plaintiffs failed to satisfy the Rule 23(b) predominance requirement (that questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members). The court (following the Supreme Court’s decision in Comcast Corp. v. Behrend) reasoned that the plaintiffs failed to isolate the effects of a given conspiratorial effort upon all or a significant portion of the proposed class, rejecting experts’ regression analyses and testimony about the overall nature and characteristics of the market for bearings.

GCR editors selected the finalists in each category, and readers voted on the winners. The awards were presented at a ceremony on March 26 in Washington, D.C.

Victims of Bernie Madoff’s Ponzi scheme convinced a federal magistrate judge April 11 that their class action against the attorney who represented them belongs in federal court, reports Bloomberg Law.

Investors claimed attorney Helen Chaitman of Chaitman LLP and Becker & Poliakoff LLP improperly represented clients with competing interests while at the two firms.

A magistrate judge found that the case shouldn’t be dismissed, writes Bloomberg’s Perry Cooper.

Read the Bloomberg Law article.

The Washington Post is reporting that a Boeing shareholder has filed a class-action lawsuit accusing the company of covering up safety problems with its 737 Max, the commercial jet at the center of two crashes that killed 346 people.

Shareholder Richard Seeks claims Boeing “effectively put profitability and growth ahead of airplane safety and honesty.” The suit said investors suffered economic losses because of Boeing’s omissions and is seeking damages for alleged securities fraud violations, writes the Post‘s Hamza Shaban.

Seeks said he bought 300 Boeing shares in early March and sold them weeks later at a more than $14,000 loss.

Read the Washington Post article.

Hertz Global Holdings has filed a lawsuit against its former general counsel and some other former managers after they refused to pay back at least $70 million in incentive compensation for their roles in an accounting scandal five years ago, reports The Global Legal Post.

The company accused the former executives of pressuring employees to use fraudulent accounting techniques to inflate income and earnings, according to a March 25 lawsuit.

Former general counsel Jeffrey Zimmerman has refused to return incentive compensation tied to the erroneous accounting results.

Read the Global Legal Post article.

The Cook County Record is reporting that a county judge has ordered more than $1 million in sanctions and penalties against a lawyer and his client in connection with a litany of legal actions against a condo association.

The lawyer is John Xydakis, a Chicago real estate lawyer. He represented Marshall Spiegel, who sued the 1618 Sheridan Road Condominium Association. On Feb. 8, 2018, Judge Margaret Ann Brennan denied Spiegel’s request to file a 99-count, 223-page fifth amended complaint and later that year denied his motion to reconsider that ruling, writes Scott Holland.

The judge’s order noted “Xydakis filed claims against nearly every resident” of the condo and “without any factual basis … alleged serious offenses, including theft, slander, harassment and stalking.” She said the claims they brought “have no basis in law or fact.”

Read the Cook County Record article.

During his five years as Halliburton’s top lawyer, Robb Voyles has won two cases at the U.S. Supreme Court, successfully concluded a nine-figure tax dispute with its former KBR subsidiary and convinced the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission to end its investigation of the company without a fraud finding.

Mark Curriden of the Texas Lawbook, writing for the Houston Chronicle, profiles the chief legal officer, one of the most senior and respected executives at Halliburton and widely recognized as a leader of the legal profession.

Just three weeks ago, Voyles won what may have been his sweetest victory yet — and it involves the first case that brought Voyles to the attention of Halliburton executives, Curriden writes. Chief U.S. District Judge Barbara Lynn of Dallas officially dismissed the final remnants of a nearly two-decade-old securities class-action lawsuit.

Read the Houston Chronicle article.

The law firm Polsinelli recently defeated a motion to dismiss a client’s judicial review of an arbitration award, successfully arguing that adopted arbitration rules that waive appellate rights do not waive a party’s right to judicial review under the Federal Arbitration Act.

A post on the firm’s website introduced the case:

The case presented a conflict between the parties’ contractually-adopted arbitration rules and an individual party’s statutory rights under the FAA. Although ultimately successful, the case served as an important reminder for parties to thoroughly review contractual arbitration provisions – and any procedural rules referenced therein – before agreeing to them.

Read the article.

Cleveland-based BigLaw firm Jones Day, which has struggled with its reputation in the past as a diverse and inclusive workplace, is being sued for gender, pregnancy and maternity discrimination to the tune of more than $200 million, reports Crain’s Cleveland Business.

“The firm’s admitted practice of pay confidentiality, combined with the “nearly absolute control” exercised by Jones Day’s Managing Partner Steve Brogan, has resulted in an opaque review system that allows bias and retaliation to run unchecked, Nilab Tolton, Andrea Mazingo, and four Jane Does say in their April 3 complaint,” writes Crain’s Jeremy Nobile.

“Jones Days’s fraternity culture presents female attorneys at Jones Day with an unpalatable choice: participate in a culture that is at best inhospitable to women and at worst openly misogynistic or forego any hope of success at the Firm,” the lawsuit states.

Read the Crain’s article.

The former general counsel for the South Florida Hospital District has sued the district and two of its board members, claiming they fired her in retaliation for trying to stop them from violating the law, reports the South Florida Sun-Sentinel.

Reporter Cindy Krischer Goodman of the Sun-Sentinel explains:

Kimarie Stratos claims the district’s board of commissioners wrongly fired her in September after eight years on the job. In her lawsuit, she alleges her termination happened in retaliation for repeatedly reporting Sunshine Act violations, as well as objections to releasing confidential medical information, wasting of public funds, and other actions by board members. By firing her, she alleges the district has violated the Florida Whistle Blowers Act.

Read the Sun-Sentinel article.

The San Antonio city council recently voted to exclude Chick-fil-A from its list of airport vendors based on the company’s views on the LGBTQ community. Since then, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has opened an investigation into whether the city violated state law and asked the U.S. Secretary of Transportation to explore whether the city violated federal law, according to a post on the website of Androvett Legal Media & Marketing.

“On the one hand, you have the city of San Antonio running a business – the airport, and related restaurants – as opposed to a ‘traditional’ government function like a public park,” said Dallas attorney David Coale of Lynn Pinker Cox & Hurst. “In that setting, the city has a clear interest in anti-discrimination policy as well as an interest in its overall image.”

But, Coale says Chick-fil-A has two related arguments that bolster its case against removal from the airport. “One, it has a right to engage in political advocacy outside of this business setting, and two, that advocacy has nothing to do with the operation of the airport. The city’s legitimate and powerful interests in running its airport the right way is just not in play.”

“So, in sum, the City starts out ahead, but Chick-fil-A could catch up if it shows that this decision was based solely on its unrelated speech rather than a standard contract-procurement process.”

Coale also adds that the underlying issue is the broader question of “unconstitutional conditions.”

“Can the government do indirectly what it cannot do directly? The government clearly cannot ban Chick-fil-A from giving to groups with certain policy views about gay rights. Can it discourage Chick-fil-A from doing so by putting strings on its government contracts? That’s a complex area of law without a lot of clear, general answers.

“The 55-mph speed limit is the most famous example of this issue – Congress cannot directly set speed limits on state highways because, by definition, they don’t involve interstate commerce. But it could condition federal highway funds on states changing their local speed limits to 55 mph.”

Pacific Gas and Electric Co. paid at least $84 million to four outside law firms in the year leading up to its January bankruptcy filing, court papers show, demonstrating how the embattled utility’s legal bills piled up as its challenges also mounted, reports the San Francisco Chronicle.

“The vast majority of the total legal payments — $75.7 million — went to Cravath, Swaine & Moore, a New York firm that is PG&E’s lead coordinating counsel in wildfire-related matters,” writes the Chronicle‘s J.D. Morris.

The company paid Weil, Gotshal & Manges $4.7 million in the 90 days leading up to the company’s bankruptcy filing. The other firms receiving revenue from the case are Jenner & Block and Keller & Benvenutti.

“Given the importance of these issues to the board, they wanted to hire the best. And the best are very expensive,” said Jared Ellias, a UC Hastings associate law professor. “… But man, that is a lot of money.”

Read the Chronicle article.

Bloomberg Law is reporting that the attorneys who won a major court ruling this month invalidating some caps on pay for NCAA college athletes are seeking nearly $45 million for their work on the case.

The attorneys are from the law firms Winston & Strawn, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Pritzker Levine LLP, and Pearson, Simon & Warshaw, according to Bloomberg’s Mike Leonard.

The request is based on fees of almost $30 million for hours spent on the complex antitrust class action, multiplied by 1.5 to reflect the case’s degree of difficulty and risk, according to the fee motion filed March 26 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

Read the Bloomberg Law article.

Recent court decisions are making it easier for private litigants who believe they have been underpaid royalties under an oil-and-gas lease to ratchet up the pressure on operators by styling their complaints as putative class actions, writes Thomas G. Ciarlone Jr. for Kane Russell Coleman Logan’s Energy Law Today.

“This has the obvious potential to transform nuisance-value lawsuits into headline-making disputes that can involve thousands of lessors seeking a bigger piece of the pie from the working interest,” he explains.

“There could be trouble ahead for operators if the future of royalty disputes lies increasingly within the province of states’ attorneys (with broad powers and vast resources) operating under the auspices of consumer protection laws,” Ciarlone concludes.

Read the article.

The Houston Chronicle reports that the former general counsel of the Houston Housing Authority won $1.87 million in a lawsuit against the agency after she accused it of retaliation.

“Karen Miniex, the former general counsel for the agency, alleged her boss at the housing agency retaliated against her after she investigated fraud in the agency’s voucher program targeted at veterans,” according to the report. “The trial was held before U.S. District Judge Nancy F. Atlas.”

A statement from the agency said an appeal is being considered, should the judge uphold the jury’s verdict.

Read the Houston Chronicle article.

A former lawyer with Hunton & Williams has been awarded $6.3 million for a brain injury caused when she hit her head on a low-hanging pipe in the Atlanta parking garage used by people at the law firm, reports the ABA Journal.

Aja Diamond McCoy was a lawyer at the firm now known as Hunton Andrews Kurth when she suffered the injury.

Jurors awarded her $8 million, but McCoy was deemed to be partially at fault, reducing the award to $6.3 million. She suffers from “unpredictable and severe” pain from the 2013 injury.

Read the ABA Journal article.

A Washington, D.C. federal judge entered a $353 million default judgment March 23 against Iran for its role in the 1985 hijacking of TWA Flight 847, according to the plaintiffs’ law firm, Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp.

The commercial airliner was hijacked in 1985 shortly after takeoff from Athens, Greece, headed to Rome, and then on to Boston and Los Angeles, with 139 passengers aboard, most of whom were Americans. The lawsuit, filed by 108 passengers and family members, was filed under a 2008 statute creating a federal cause of action against foreign states designated as State Sponsors of Terrorism for supporting terrorist attacks. Iran was added to the list in 1984, based on its support for a campaign of terrorist hijackings, bombings and kidnappings largely aimed at American citizens.

On June 14, 1985, terrorists from the Iranian-financed terrorist group Hezbollah boarded TWA Flight 847, posing as passengers, while heavily armed with guns, hand grenades and other explosives. When the aircraft reached cruising altitude, they stood up and ran down the aisle, threatening to blow up the aircraft unless Israel released 700 imprisoned Shiite Muslims. The plane was diverted to Beirut, Lebanon for refueling. The hijackers then ordered the plane to fly back and forth between Beirut and Algiers, Algeria for the next three days, releasing small groups of mostly women and children along the way. On the second stop in Beirut, airport authorities turned out the lights and blocked the runways, nearly forcing a crash landing.

During the flight, passengers were beaten, made to hold torturously painful positions for hours, and subjected to mock executions. In Beirut, the terrorists killed Navy diver Robert Stethem, dumping his body on the tarmac. Family members could only imagine the worst, having no way of knowing the fate of their loved ones. Then, 39 male passengers were taken into Beirut, where they were held for several more weeks until Israel agreed to satisfy some of the terrorists’ demands by releasing prisoners held in Israel and Kuwait.

The lawsuit centered on evidence that Iran financed, supported, trained, and guided Hezbollah for the purpose of using terrorist attacks to promote a largely anti-Semitic and anti-American agenda. The U.S. Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act affords plaintiffs the ability to sue a foreign country for damages caused by its sponsorship of terrorist attacks. Similar lawsuits against Iran, Sudan, Syria and North Korea have resulted in judgments for compensatory damages totaling billions of dollars.

In his order granting plaintiffs’ motion for entry of default judgment, District Court Judge Richard Leon noted that the victims’ declarations “paint a harrowing tale of the events that transpired aboard TWA Flight 847.”

“These families have lived with the trauma of the hijacking for over 30 years with little hope of getting closure,” said plaintiffs’ counsel Mark N. Bravin, partner at Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp LLP (MSK). “They have now succeeded in holding Iran accountable in a court of law for its role in the hijacking and are entitled to the damages awarded by the court.”

Each of the 108 plaintiffs will be eligible to seek partial payment of their judgments from the U.S. Victims of State Sponsored Terrorism Fund. Congress created the Fund in December 2015 to address the difficulties American victims have encountered when trying to enforce court judgments against the foreign states that sponsor terrorist attacks.

“The District Court’s decision acknowledges the significant physical and emotional trauma our clients suffered and will enable them to collect at least a portion of the damages awarded to them by the court,” added Bravin.

The case is Allan, et. al. v. Islamic Republic of Iran, Civil Action No. 1:17-cv-00338, United States District Court for the District of Columbia. In addition to Bravin, plaintiffs were represented by Theresa Bowman and Matthew Williams, also of MSK.

Expert Webcast will present a complimentary webinar roundtable titled “The Role of Financial Experts in Commercial Litigation.”

The event will be Tuesday, March 26, 2019, 1-2 p.m. Eastern time.

Speakers will be Dan Boland of Pepper Hamilton, Jeff Litvak of FTI Consulting, Clara Chin of FTI Consulting, and Alex Kasan of DelMorgan & Co.

Anyone who wants access to the replay of the webinar may indicate that preference in the last field of the registration form.

Register for the webinar.

A recent Texas Supreme Court opinion provides a definitive answer to the question of whether a party can ignore the written words of a contract that directly contradict what you are being told by your counterparty is the real deal.

Glenn D. West, writing for Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP’s Global Private Equity Watch, discusses Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC v. Carduco Inc.

“While it is often said that fraud vitiates a contract that was entered into based upon that fraud (and such fraud would also trump the parol evidence rule), that statement is only true if there was actually legally-recognized fraud that induced the making of the contract. But a fraud cause of action does not consist simply of an allegation that the defendant made a false statement of fact to the plaintiff, knowingly or recklessly,” West writes.

The Texas Supreme Court found that “[b]ecause the conduct and action of [the defendants] on which [the plaintiff] relies to establish its fraudulent-inducement claim are directly contrary to the unambiguous terms of the contract it signed, we conclude that [the plaintiff’s] reliance thereon was unjustified as a matter of law.”

Read the article.