Federal Government

Mindy Kaling and Preet Bharara at the Harvard Law School commencement.

The legal world doesn’t have too many “crossover celebrities,” figures who are big enough to be known outside our little corner of the world. We can all think of a few — Alan Dershowitz, Judge Judy, Supreme Court justices (arguably) — and not all of them are awesome (cough cough, Nancy Grace).

One of the youngest crossover celebrities is Preet Bharara, U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York. He’s been on the cover of Time magazine. He’s attended the Vanity Fair Oscars party.

Bharara is best known for his crackdown on Wall Street abuses and insider trading, but he’s a fun person underneath the prosecutor’s dark suit. Yesterday the New York Times ran an interesting profile of Bharara. Here are some highlights….

double red triangle arrows Continue reading “A Portrait Of A Prosecutor: 5 Fun Facts About Preet Bharara”


Ed note: This post originally appeared on Global Regulatory Enforcement Law Blog.

Seemingly every day, new types of wearable devices are popping up on the market. Google Glass, Samsung’s Gear, Fitbit (a fitness and activity tracker), Pulse (a fitness tracker that measures heart rate and blood oxygen), and Narrative (a wearable, automatic camera) are just a few of the more popular “wearables” currently on the market, not to mention Apple’s “iWatch,” rumored to be released later this year. In addition, medical devices are becoming increasingly advanced in their ability to collect and track patient behavior.

double red triangle arrows Continue reading “Wearable Device Privacy – A Legislative Priority?”

Ed note: This post originally appeared on Ad Law Access.

That the FTC has announced another weight loss settlement is no news at all. The FTC averages about six new weight loss orders per year. The new settlement, nevertheless, is notable as a reminder of the following points.

The FTC has the power to impose bans. The Order against the marketers of Double Shot diet pills “permanently restrain[s] and enjoin[s]” them from advertising or selling “any weight-loss product.” The FTC does not frequently impose bans in weight loss cases, but bans have been used before in similar instances where extreme Gut Check claims (discussed below) have been made.

double red triangle arrows Continue reading “The FTC Has Announced a Weight Loss Settlement … But Wait, Keep Reading”

Ed note: This post originally appeared on InfoLawGroup.

Last week, the FTC released a study it conducted in connection with price-comparison apps, deal apps and apps that allow people to pay for purchases using their mobile device while shopping in brick-and-mortar stores. The newly released study is the latest commentary from the FTC in a long line of workshops and reports that started in 2012 on the issue of mobile apps, mobile payment mechanisms and related matters, such as mobile cramming and mobile security. Here are the key takeaways from the latest study:

double red triangle arrows Continue reading “Mobile Apps: FTC Says Vague Privacy Policies and Lack of Terms a Problem”

Ed note: This post originally appeared on Peter S. Vogel’s Internet, Information Technology & e-Discovery Blog.

As part of a drug trafficking investigation the US government persuaded a Court to issue a warrant that “purports to authorize the Government to search any and all of Microsoft’s facilities worldwide” according to Microsoft’s opposition brief filed on June 6, 2014 in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York. Microsoft also argued:

double red triangle arrows Continue reading “Cloud at Risk as Microsoft is Ordered to Produce Data in Ireland”

Ed. note: This is the latest installment in a series of posts on lateral partner moves from Lateral Link’s team of expert contributors. Michael Allen is Managing Principal at Lateral Link, focusing exclusively on partner placements with Am Law 200 clients.

For senior associates up for partner, firms have become increasingly focused on business potential and less so on an associate’s ability to outclass others in the courtroom or at the negotiating table.

In the days of yore, the partner track in Biglaw was oftentimes a reward for consistent competence and professionalism. In an era of PPP and RPL, most firms (other than the Cravath, Quinn, or Simpson Thacher types) are less likely to promote associates unless they see real revenue-generating potential.

If you find yourself in your fifth to tenth year and are unsure whether you will make partner, here are four steps to help you steer your career…

double red triangle arrows Continue reading “What To Do When The Partner Track Closes”

On Tuesday, the D.C. Circuit ruled against Matt Sissel, the Iowa artist and entrepreneur who challenged the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate on the grounds that the law violated the U.S. Constitution’s Origination Clause. Article I, § 7, clause 1 requires that “all bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other bills.” Obamacare raises government revenue by billions of dollars, but it was drafted in the Senate. Judge Judith Rogers wrote the opinion in Sissel v. HHS for a panel including two newly minted Obama appointees, Judge Nina Pillard and Judge Robert Wilkins.

This ruling comes in the wake of last week’s dueling decisions in Halbig v. Burwell and King v. Burwell. Another D.C. Circuit panel found that Obamacare subsidies were illegal in the 36 states that refused to set up state healthcare exchanges. On the same day, the Fourth Circuit disagreed. In court battles, Obamacare opponents are winning some and losing some.

What should we make of their track record so far?

double red triangle arrows Continue reading “Liberal Critiques Of Challenges To Obamacare: 2 Errors Worth Correcting”

Powered By JD Supra

n Automated Solutions Corp. v. Paragon Data Systems, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 11918 (6th Cir. June 25, 2014), the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit provided a close examination of the standards required for the imposition of severe sanctions for failing to preserve evidence. The case involved a dispute between two software companies over the development of software code. Essentially, the plaintiff Automated Solutions (“Automated”) accused Paragon Data Systems (“Paragon”) of utilizing Automated’s code to develop a competing software program. Automated filed a motion for sanctions seeking a default judgment against Paragon for Paragon’s failure to preserve a server and two hard drives utilized in the development of the competing software as well as computer backup tapes. The district court concluded that Paragon was negligent in failing to preserve the materials, but that there was no evidence indicating that Paragon acted with any willful or malicious behavior. Instead of imposing sanctions, the court indicated that it would consider the issuance of an adverse inference instruction against Paragon at trial. After Paragon prevailed on summary judgment, Automated appealed to the Sixth Circuit.

double red triangle arrows Continue reading “Sixth Circuit Analyzes Standards for Sanctions for Failing to Preserve Evidence”

Ed note: CommLawBlog is part of the LexBlog Network (LXBN). LXBN is the world’s largest network of professional blogs. With more than 8,000 authors, LXBN is the only media source featuring the latest lawyer-generated commentary on news and issues from around the globe.

As comments pile up in the Open Internet proceeding, straining the FCC’s systems, a post on the Commission’s blog got us thinking about transparency.

On July 14, 2014 – the day before the original deadline for initial comments in the Open Internet (a/k/a Net Neutrality) proceeding – in the spirit of transparency the FCC’s Chief Information Officer took to the Commission’s blog to tout the agency’s ability to track the numbers of comments flooding in over the transom. According to a couple of files linked in his post, the Commission had received nearly 170,000 Net Neutrality comments submitted electronically through ECFS (the FCC’s online filing system), and another 442,000 or so by email. Those numbers are a moving target, though, and the target is only moving up: according to a post on ArsTechnica, by 11:00 a.m. on July 15, the tally was up to about 670,000.

double red triangle arrows Continue reading “INCOMING! Commission’s Net Neutrality Comment Conundrum”

Ed note: The CommLawBlog is part of the LexBlog Network (LXBN). LXBN is the world’s largest network of professional blogs. With more than 8,000 authors, LXBN is the only media source featuring the latest lawyer-generated commentary on news and issues from around the globe.

Trying to make lemonade out of the lemon handed to it by the Supreme Court, Aereo has come up with Plan B.

The best stories never really end when you think they’re going to, do they? There’s always a nifty twist that keeps the plot chugging along.

So we really didn’t expect that the Supreme Court’s decision was the last word in the Aereo case, did we?

And right we were.

After pulling the plug on its service within a couple of days after taking a seeming knock-out punch from the Supreme Court, Aereo has come up with a plan. According to a letter filed by Aereo with Judge Alison Nathan of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (where the Aereo saga first got our attention back in 2012), Aereo is now a cable company that is entitled – by Congress, thank you very much – to retransmit over-the-air broadcast programming. As long, that is, as Aereo files the necessary “statements of account” and “royalty fees”required of cable systems. And in its letter Aereo advises that it “is proceeding” to file just those items.

Following the adage about making lemonade when handed lemons, Aereo has taken the Supreme Court’s decision and tried to turn it to Aereo’s advantage. Since the Supremes said that Aereo is “highly similar” to a conventional cable company, well then (according to Aereo), Aereo is a cable system and, therefore, “is entitled to a license” under Section 111 of the Copyright Act.

And even if it’s not entitled to such a license, Aereo’s got another argument. The Supreme Court concluded that Aereo is like a cable system because Aereo provides “near simultaneous” retransmissions of over-the-air programming. So (Aereo reasons) if Aereo’s service were to be limited to delayed (i.e., not “near simultaneous”) retransmissions – providing, instead, essentially an elaborate recording-and-playback service – then Aereo would no longer be like a cable system and would no longer be subject to the terms of the Supreme Court’s decision. (Blogmeister’s Note: Props to the Swami, Kevin Goldberg, for seeing this argument coming.)

Aereo’s argument is far from perfect. For example, while the Supremes did clearly indicate that Aereo is “highly similar” to a cable system, it’s a stretch to conclude (as Aereo does) that the Supreme Court issued a “holding that Aereo is a cable system under the Copyright Act”. A couple of years ago an operation called ivi, Inc., which provided an Internet-delivered system for streaming over-the-air programming and claimed it was a cable system, didn’t make it out of the starting gate. While Aereo’s system is arguably different in certain respects from ivi’s, the fact that ivi didn’t get very far should send Aereo a cautionary message.

How Judge Nathan will react to Aereo’s pirouette remains to be seen.

But, for now, Aereo lives on. It’s into Plan B and its now-proposed service is far from the service that got this melodrama started in 2012. But it’s still with us, at least for a while.

Page 1 of 2812345...28