-
Jan 6, 2025 | 
businesslawtoday.org | Barbara Sicalides |Julian J. Weiss |Jim Sandy |McGlinchey Stafford PLLC
CURRENT MONTH (December 2024) Table of Contents hide Two Courts Block Kroger-Albertsons MergerBy Barbara Sicalides and Julian Weiss, Troutman Pepper Hamilton Sanders LLPWithin hours of each other on December 10, an Oregon federal district court followed by a Washington state court enjoined the $24.6 billion merger of the Kroger and Albertsons grocery chains.
-
Jun 5, 2024 | 
mondaq.com | Jim Sandy
On May 23, 2024, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that when parties have
agreed to more than one contract – one that contains a clause
sending threshold arbitrability questions to an arbitrator and one
that sends those disputes to a court – a court must decide
which contract governs.
Suski involved a conflict between two contracts
executed between the parties.
-
Jun 4, 2024 | 
businesslawtoday.org | Leona Yazdidoust |Jim Sandy |McGlinchey Stafford PLLC |Stuart J. Kaswell
CURRENT MONTH (May 2024)U.S. Supreme Court Ruling Clarifies Scope of Rule 10b-5(b) Claims under Securities Exchange Act of 1934By Leona YazdidoustIn Macquarie Infrastructure Corp. v. Moab Partners, L. P., the U.S. Supreme Court held that a failure to disclose information required by Item 303 of SEC Regulation S-K (“Item 303”) cannot support a private action under Rule 10b-5(b), when the failure does not render any “statements made” misleading.
-
Jun 3, 2024 | 
mondaq.com | Jim Sandy
On May 20, 2024, the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York issued a decision holding that legal fees
resulting from violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
(FDCPA) constitute a cognizable monetary harm for the purpose of
establishing constitutional standing.
In Levy, Plaintiff brought claims for violations of the
FDCPA against a debt-collector law firm, its principal, and a
company through which the attorney practiced judgment enforcement.
-
May 31, 2024 | 
mondaq.com | Jim Sandy
This is the second part of a two-part series on Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau v. Community Financial Services
Association of America. Read part one
here.
In what should not come as a surprise to anyone who observed the
October oral argument1 in the case of Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau v.
-
May 23, 2024 | 
law360.com | Jim Sandy
By Jim Sandy (May 23, 2024, 4:17 PM EDT) -- In what should not come as a surprise to anyone who observed the October oral argument[1] in the case of Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Community Financial Services Association of America, the U.S. Supreme Court emphatically ruled on May 16 that the bureau's funding structure did not violate the appropriations clause of the U.S. Constitution.[2]... Law360 is on it, so you are, too.
-
May 22, 2024 | 
mondaq.com | Jim Sandy
On May 7, 2024, the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey issued a decision holding that the use by a debt collector of the Model Form validation notice under Regulation F does not guarantee compliance with the requirements of 15 U.S.C. § 1692g or other sections of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA).1 Consequently, the court joined "several other district courts in finding that compliance with Regulation F and the CFPB's Model Form in and of itself does not...
-
May 22, 2024 | 
mondaq.com | Jim Sandy
Following in the footsteps of the American Arbitration Association (AAA), JAMS recently announced the creation of its own mass arbitration procedures and guidelines, designed, in part, "to facilitate the fair, expeditious, and efficient resolution of mass arbitrations." The new guidelines will apply to any mass arbitration, defined as 75 or more similar demands for arbitration or a different amount as specified in the parties' arbitration agreement, filed against the same or related party on...
-
May 22, 2024 | 
mondaq.com | Jim Sandy
On May 16, 2024, the Supreme Court unanimously held that when a district court
compels claims to arbitration and a party has requested a stay
under section 3 of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), the district
court is required to stay the case, and lacks the discretion to
dismiss the suit outright. This decision is important for parties
who seek to compel arbitration as oftentimes, parties likewise seek
an outright dismissal of the case when their claims are
arbitrable.
Smith v.
-
Apr 19, 2024 | 
mondaq.com | Jim Sandy
On April 12, 2024, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Bissonnette v. LePage Bakeries Park St.,
LLC, 601 U.S. __ (2024). It unanimously held that the
exception to arbitration under Section 1 of the Federal Arbitration
Act (FAA) is not limited solely to employees of a
company in the transportation industry, but, rather, focuses on
whether the employee is involved in interstate commerce.
