As reported this week by Law360 (subscription required), the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) recently issued a reminder (Regulatory Notice 14-40) warning firms against the use of confidentiality provisions in settlement agreements that prohibit or otherwise restrict customers or anyone else (such as current employees) from communicating with the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC), FINRA, or any federal or state regulatory authority regarding a possible securities law violation.
Above the Law
Posts by Above the Law
Refuse to Provide Electronically Stored Information in Response to a Subpoena? You Could Face SanctionsBy W. George Wailes
The California Court of Appeal recently provided rare guidance regarding a third party’s obligations to produce electronically stored information (ESI) in response to a subpoena. In Vasquez v. California School of Culinary Arts, Inc. (Sallie Mae) (August 27, 2014, B250600) Cal.App.4th (2014 WL 4793703), the court defined subpoenaed parties’ obligations to extract existing data from computer systems and upheld an award of attorneys’ fees against the recalcitrant third party. The court concluded that it is unreasonable for a third party to withhold ESI that exists in its computer systems on the basis that outputting the ESI entails creating a “new” spreadsheet.
It’s only a couple weeks away. ATL is heading to Philadelphia, and if you’re a law student, we want to get you a drink after class. We’ve visited a bunch of cities before but somehow we’ve always missed Philadelphia. No longer, thanks to our friends at Kaplan Bar Review.
Details and a form to officially RSVP are below.
Tell your friends and come on down…
Stockton Judge: Pension Obligations Are Not Impervious to Impairment In Chapter 9 Bankruptcy. What Comes Next?By Ben Feder
Ed note: This post originally appeared on Bankruptcy Law Insights.
The perception that public employee pension obligations cannot be impaired in bankruptcy suffered a damaging blow several months ago in the City of Detroit bankruptcy case, and has now been fatally wounded by the recent ruling of Judge Christopher Klein in the Chapter 9 case of Stockton, California. Although Judge Klein’s decision is not likely to lead to a spate of municipal bankruptcy filings in an effort to escape burdensome pension liabilities (indeed, it may not even lead to the actual diminishment of pension claims in the Stockton case itself), this is an important decision. Unless reversed on appeal, it will alter the legal landscape for distressed municipalities. Together with the similar Detroit decision, the Stockton ruling will affect negotiations among municipalities, employee unions, pension system representatives and financial creditors across the country.
On Monday, October 27, at 6 p.m., we’ll be hosting an awesome Above the Law event in Washington, D.C.: a look at the current Term of the Supreme Court of the United States.
Our managing editor, David Lat, will moderate a discussion featuring two of the nation’s foremost Supreme Court advocates: Lisa Blatt, head of the appellate and Supreme Court practice at Arnold & Porter, and Tom Goldstein, partner at Goldstein & Russell and publisher of SCOTUSblog. Blatt and Goldstein have collectively argued more than 60 times before the Court.
There are many SCOTUS previews taking place around town over the next few weeks, but we promise you that the ATL event will be especially fun and lively. We will offer food, drink, and excellent company.
This event is free of charge. If you’d like to attend, please request an invite below. Thanks!
Could the third time be the charm? Today, the U.S. Supreme Court granted the petition for certiorari filed in May 2014 by the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs (Texas DHCA) in Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. The Inclusive Communities Project, Inc.
The case gives the Supreme Court its third opportunity since 2012 to rule on the issue of whether disparate impact claims are cognizable under the Fair Housing Act. The prior two cases, Twp. Of Mount Holly v. Mt. Holly Gardens Citizens in Action, Inc. and Magner v. Gallagher, were both settled after the completion of briefing but before the Court could hear oral argument and answer the question presented. This time around the Court granted the certiorari petition without first soliciting the views of the Solicitor General.
Ed note: This post originally appeared on CommLawBlog.
With SuperPAC money flowing and political ads running on Internet streams, caution in dealing with political spots is in order.
There may be just a few weeks remaining in this election season, but broadcasters should be paying attention – now and in future elections – to an important aspect of the political advertising business: the extent to which they may be able to demand changes in, or refuse to air, political ads because of their content. One key protection that covers the broadcast of some political spots does not cover all such spots, and it definitely does not appear to cover any non-broadcast distribution of even the spots that are protected when broadcast.
How much for a “disease domain”?
Jiminy jillickers! ATL editors are going all over the place over the next month or so. Or at least all over the Eastern Seaboard. If we aren’t heading to your neck of the woods on these trips, never fear, we may hit you up on the next time around. We’ve already hit up Houston, Chicago, Seattle, San Francisco, and Los Angeles in the past year.
So what all are we up to this time?
On July 14, 2014, the Court in United States v. University of Nebraska at Kearny (No. 4:11CV3209) took a significant step in support of Federal Rules 1 and 26. Magistrate Judge Cheryl R. Zwart denied plaintiff’s motion to compel defendants to use plaintiffs’ proposed search terms to cull electronically stored information (ESI) for review and production. The Court’s order effectively discharged defendants’ obligation to produce any ESI. And the Court issued this order notwithstanding both that 1) the parties had agreed to a stipulation summarizing protocol for the production of ESI shortly after the outset of the case, and 2) plaintiff previously produced ESI as part of its production to defendants’ discovery requests. In short, plaintiffs’ unwillingness to fairly compromise as to the breadth of search terms aimed at reasonably limiting the scope of ESI production came back to bite.