Tag Archives: NRLPA:OLIT

Entertainment

Prince Andrew is served sexual assault lawsuit in United States

Leave a comment

NEW YORK, Sept 21 (Reuters) – Britain’s Prince Andrew has been served with a sexual assault lawsuit in the United States by lawyers for a woman who says she was forced to have sex with him at the London home of a friend of convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, court papers show.

In a filing with the U.S. District Court in Manhattan, lawyers for Virginia Giuffre said they sent the civil lawsuit to the prince’s Los Angeles-based lawyer Andrew Brettler by email and FedEx, and both copies had been received by Monday morning.

Under federal rules, the Duke of York has 21 days to respond or could face a default judgment. Giuffre’s lawyers previously said they also served Andrew, who is Queen Elizabeth’s second son, in Britain.

Andrew and his lawyers have denied Giuffre’s claims. The 61-year-old prince has not been charged with crimes. Giuffre’s Aug. 9 lawsuit seeks unspecified damages. read more

Brettler did not respond to a request for comment. There was no comment from the prince’s London legal team.

Giuffre, 38, accused Andrew of forcing her to have sex when she was underage at the London home of Epstein’s longtime associate Ghislaine Maxwell.

She also said Andrew abused her at around the same time in Epstein’s mansion in Manhattan and on Epstein’s private island in the U.S. Virgin Islands.

Britain’s Prince Andrew leaves St Mary the Virgin church in Hillington, near royal Sandringham estate, in Norfolk, Britain January 19, 2020. REUTERS/Chris Radburn/File Photo

Read More

Epstein, a financier and registered sex offender, killed himself in a Manhattan jail in August 2019 while awaiting trial on sex trafficking charges.

Giuffre sued under New York’s Child Victims Act, a 2019 law giving survivors of childhood sexual abuse a window to sue their alleged abusers over conduct that occurred many years or decades earlier. The deadline to sue has since passed.

U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan, who oversees Giuffre’s lawsuit, has urged both sides not to dwell on “technicalities” and instead to focus on the case’s substance.

“I can see a lot of legal fees being spent and time being expended and delay, which ultimately may not be terribly productive for anyone,” Kaplan said at a Sept. 13 hearing.

Last week London’s High Court said it would arrange for Andrew to be served if the parties failed to work out their own arrangement and gave the prince’s lawyers a week to appeal that decision.

A source close to the Duke’s lawyers said it was highly unlikely any challenge would be pursued now. read more

Maxwell has pleaded not guilty to criminal charges she helped recruit and groom underage girls for Epstein to abuse. Her trial is Nov. 29.

Reporting by Jonathan Stempel in New York
Editing by Sonya Hepinstall and Angus MacSwan

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Read original article here

Business

Uber drivers are employees, not contractors, says Dutch court

Leave a comment

AMSTERDAM, Sept 13 (Reuters) – Uber (UBER.N) drivers are employees entitled to greater workers’ rights under local labour laws, a Dutch court ruled on Monday, handing a setback to the U.S. company’s European business model.

It was another court victory for unions fighting for better pay and benefits for those employed in the gig economy and followed a similar decision this year about Uber in Britain.

The Amsterdam District Court sided with the Federation of Dutch Trade Unions, which had argued that Uber’s roughly 4,000 drivers in the capital are in fact employees of a taxi company and should be granted benefits in line with the taxi sector.

Uber said it would appeal against the decision and “has no plans to employ drivers in the Netherlands”.

“We are disappointed with this decision because we know that the overwhelming majority of drivers wish to remain independent,” said Maurits Schönfeld, Uber’s general manager for northern Europe. “Drivers don’t want to give up their freedom to choose if, when and where to work.”

The court found drivers who transport passengers via the Uber app are covered by the collective labour agreement for taxi transportation.

“The legal relationship between Uber and these drivers meets all the characteristics of an employment contract,” the ruling said.

The FNV hailed the ruling.

“Due to the judge’s ruling, the Uber drivers are now automatically employed by Uber,” said Zakaria Boufangacha, FNV’s deputy chairman. “As a result, they will receive more wages and more rights in the event of dismissal or illness, for example.”

Uber drivers are in some cases entitled to back pay, the court said.

The judges also ordered Uber to pay a fine of 50,000 euros ($58,940) for failing to implement the terms of the labour agreement for taxi drivers.

In March, Uber said it would improve workers’ rights, including the minimum wage, for all of its more than 70,000 British drivers after it lost a Supreme Court case in February.

Uber also faced a legal setback in the United States, where the Supreme Court in May rejected its bid to avoid a lawsuit over whether drivers are employees and not independent contractors. read more

($1 = 0.8483 euros)

Reporting by Anthony Deutsch and Toby Sterling;
Editing by Emelia Sithole-Matarise and Edmund Blair

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Read original article here

Business

Theranos founder Elizabeth Holmes arrives at court for trial start

Leave a comment

SAN JOSE, Calif., Sept 8 (Reuters) – Theranos founder Elizabeth Holmes arrived in a California federal court on Wednesday ahead of opening statements in her trial on fraud charges against the former Silicon Valley star accused of lying about her now-defunct blood-testing startup once valued at $9 billion.

In one of the most closely watched trials of a U.S. corporate executive in years, Holmes is accused of making false claims about the company, including that its devices designed to draw a drop of blood from a finger prick could run a range of tests more quickly and accurately than conventional laboratory means.

Holmes, 37, arrived at the courtroom in San Jose wearing a white blouse and grayish-blue skirt suit. The hallway, filled with observers chatting and waiting to get in, hushed as she passed.

Journalists and others hoping to attend the trial lined up outside the courthouse hours before the proceedings were set to begin, some arriving as early as 2 a.m. A 12-member jury is set to hear opening arguments in the trial being presided over by U.S. District Judge Edward Davila, starting with the prosecution.

Holmes, who may take the witness stand during the trial, has pleaded not guilty to 10 counts of wire fraud and two counts of conspiracy. Former Theranos executive Ramesh “Sunny” Balwani, scheduled to be tried separately, has also pleaded not guilty.

Prosecutors have said Holmes and Balwani defrauded investors between 2010 and 2015 and deceived patients when the company began making its tests commercially available, including via a partnership with the Walgreens (WBA.O) drugstore chain.

Court filings unsealed last month showed that Holmes, who had been in a romantic relationship with Balwani, has alleged that he abused her emotionally and psychologically. Balwani has denied the allegations.

Holmes’ attorneys have said in court papers she is “highly likely” to take the witness stand and testify about how the relationship affected her mental state. Defendants rarely testify at their own trials because it opens them up to potentially risky cross examination by prosecutors.

Legal experts expect her defense lawyers to raise questions about what Holmes knew and believed during the alleged scheme. To convict Holmes of fraud, prosecutors must prove her intent.

The defense and prosecution have identified more than 140 potential witnesses in the case, including investors and former Theranos employees.

The defense has sought to prevent certain testimony from three former employees. In response to that motion, prosecutors late on Tuesday released six pages of texts between Holmes and Balwani, saying they back up potential testimony by one of the former employees that the two executives retaliated against her after she raised concerns about the company.

A Stanford University dropout who started Theranos in 2003 at age 19, Holmes once grabbed headlines with her vision of a small machine that could run blood tests in stores and homes.

The Wall Street Journal in 2015 reported that the Theranos devices were flawed and inaccurate, setting off a downward spiral for a company that had drawn investors including media mogul Rupert Murdoch and Oracle (ORCL.N) co-founder Larry Ellison.

The saga has become the subject of documentaries, podcasts and books. A TV miniseries and a Hollywood film based on Holmes’ story are in the works.

Reporting by Jody Godoy; Editing by Will Dunham

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Read original article here

Business

Pilots union sues Southwest Airlines, alleges violation of federal labor law

Leave a comment

The company and law firm names shown above are generated automatically based on the text of the article. We are improving this feature as we continue to test and develop in beta. We welcome feedback, which you can provide using the feedback tab on the right of the page.

Aug 31 (Reuters) – A union representing Southwest Airlines Co (LUV.N) pilots has filed a lawsuit challenging forced time off and other changes to working conditions imposed by the airline during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Southwest Airlines Pilots Association filed a complaint in federal court in Dallas on Monday claiming that the carrier implemented an “emergency time off” program, altered schedules, and scaled back prescription drug and retirement benefits without bargaining, in violation of federal labor law.

It claims Southwest should have collectively bargained with the union instead of giving itself “force majeure” rights when air travel plummeted during the pandemic.

The lawsuit marks an escalation in mounting tensions between the airline and its staff. Its pilots union has threatened to picket over the winter holidays to protest against a host of issues including a gruelling work schedule, a lack of food and accommodation and COVID-19 protocols.

The protest prompted the company last week to trim flight schedules for this fall in a bid to better align its operations with staffing. read more

In the lawsuit, the union said the airline is bound by the terms of the collective bargaining agreement that lapsed in August last year, but remains in effect until a new agreement is reached and does not contain a “force majeure” clause.

It asked the court for an injunction, requiring Southwest to stick to the provisions of the lapsed agreement, and negotiate the terms for an “emergency extended time off” program, and COVID 19-related work conditions.

In an email sent to its members on Tuesday, the union said the lawsuit was the “only recourse” to compel the company to meet its duty to collectively bargain.

Russell McCrady, Southwest vice president of labor relations, in a statement said that the airline disagrees that any COVID-related changes adopted in recent months required negotiation.

“As always, Southwest remains committed to pilots’ health and welfare and to working with SWAPA, and our other union partners, as we continue navigating the challenges presented by the ongoing pandemic,” he said.

Reporting by Daniel Wiessner in New York and Rajesh Kumar Singh in Chicago; Editing by Richard Chang, Mark Porter and Richard Pullin

Daniel Wiessner

Dan Wiessner (@danwiessner) reports on labor and employment and immigration law, including litigation and policy making. He can be reached at daniel.wiessner@thomsonreuters.com.

Read original article here

Business

UK court sets scene for $14 bln-plus class action against Mastercard

Leave a comment

  • Britain’s first consumer class action authorised
  • UK Supreme Court overruled objections to case in December
  • Claimants allege Mastercard overcharged 46 million people

LONDON, Aug 18 (Reuters) – A London court on Wednesday approved a 10 billion pound-plus ($14 billion-plus) class action against global payments processor Mastercard (MA.N) that claimants said could entitle 46 million British adults to roughly 300 pounds each if it is successful.

The Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) had been expected to certify Britain’s first mass consumer class action, brought by former financial ombudsman Walter Merricks, after the UK Supreme Court overruled objections to it in December. read more

The decision to finally authorise the five-year case as a collective action establishes a standard for a string of other proposed class actions that have been stalled in its wake.

“Mastercard has thrown everything at trying to prevent this claim going forward, but today its efforts have failed,” Merricks said in a statement.

“The tribunal’s ruling heralds the start of an era of consumer-focused class actions which will help to hold big business to account in areas that really matter.”

Mastercard said the “spurious” claim was being driven by lawyers and backed by organisations “primarily focused on making money for themselves”.

Merricks alleges Mastercard charged excessive “interchange” fees – the fees retailers pay credit card companies when consumers use a card to shop – between May 1992 and June 2008 and that those fees were passed on to consumers as retailers raised prices.

But Merricks failed to expand the scope of the case by adding the estates of the deceased and compound interest to the claim. Mastercard said this reduced the claim’s size to around 10 billion pounds. The claimants put it at 15 billion pounds.

“The decision today reduces the value of this spurious claim by more than 35%,” Mastercard said in a statement.

“Mastercard is confident that over the coming months a review of key facts will further significantly reduce the size and viability of the claim.”

($1 = 0.7265 pounds)

Reporting by Kirstin Ridley; Editing by Steve Orlofsky

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Read original article here

World

Canada judge won’t allow Huawei CFO to use HSBC documents in U.S. extradition case

Leave a comment

VANCOUVER, July 9 (Reuters) – A Canadian judge has denied Huawei Chief Financial Officer Meng Wanzhou’s application to add a trove of documents her legal team received from HSBC as evidence to her U.S. extradition case, the judge announced on Friday.

Meng, 49, is facing extradition from Canada to the United States on charges of bank fraud for allegedly misleading HSBC about Huawei’s business dealings in Iran, potentially causing the bank to break U.S. sanctions. She has been held under house arrest in Vancouver since December 2018, when she was first detained.

Her legal team received over 300 pages of internal documents from HSBC through a court on Hong Kong, which the defence argued should be entered as evidence because they would disprove the basis for the United States’ extradition claim. read more

Associate Chief Justice Heather Holmes, who has been overseeing the case in the British Columbia Supreme Court since its inception, disagreed. Her reasons will be released in writing in approximately ten days, Holmes said.

“We respect the court’s ruling, but regret this outcome,” Huawei Canada said in a statement released after the ruling, insisting that the documents showed HSBC was aware of Huawei’s business dealings in Iran, proving that the United States’ account of the case was “manifestly unreliable.”

The Canadian government did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Meng is set to appear in court in early August. Her extradition hearings are scheduled to finish by the end of that month.

Reporting by Moira Warburton in Vancouver; editing by Diane Craft

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Read original article here

Business

U.S. judge ends Amazon challenge to $10 bln cloud contract after Pentagon cancellation

Leave a comment

The company and law firm names shown above are generated automatically based on the text of the article. We are improving this feature as we continue to test and develop in beta. We welcome feedback, which you can provide using the feedback tab on the right of the page.

WASHINGTON, July 9 (Reuters) – A U.S. judge on Friday dismissed Amazon.com’s legal challenge to the Defense Department’s2019 decision to award a $10 billion JEDI cloud-computing project to rival Microsoft Corp (MSFT.O) after the Pentagon canceled the contract.

Amazon.com had accused then-President Donald Trump, alleging that the former president exerted improper pressure on military officials to steer the contract away from Amazon. The Pentagon said on Tuesday it expected the new multi-billion dollar contract would be split between Amazon and Microsoft.

Amazon did not object to dismissing its 2019 lawsuit.

Judge Patricia E. Campbell-Smith of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims agreed to dismiss the lawsuit at the government’s request, saying the case was now moot.

Trump publicly derided then-Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos and repeatedly criticized the company. Amazon had sought to question Trump about his role in the contract decision.

The Pentagon hopes to have the first awards by April 2022 for its new Joint Warfighter Cloud Capability (JWCC).

John Sherman, acting chief information officer for the Defense Department, said on Tuesday he expects both Microsoft and Amazon will get cloud contracts.

Microsoft said in a statement that the company was confident it will “continue to be successful as the DoD selects partners for new work.”

Amazon’s Amazon Web Services cloud unit said it agreed with the Pentagon’s decision to cancel the contract. It said the initial award was “not based on the merits of the proposals and instead was the result of outside influence that has no place in government procurement.”

In April, Campbell-Smith refused to dismiss Amazon’s claims alleging the Trump administration interfered in the Pentagon’s award to Microsoft after putting it on hold indefinitely in February 2020.

The now-canceled Joint Enterprise Defense Infrastructure Cloud (JEDI) contract was budgeted for as much as $10 billion and was part of a broader digital modernization of the Pentagon aimed at making it more technologically agile.

Reporting by David Shepardson; Editing by Dan Grebler

Read original article here

Business

Musk trial asks the $2 bln question: Who controls Tesla?

Leave a comment

July 9 (Reuters) – Does Elon Musk control Tesla Inc (TSLA.O) or does Tesla control Elon Musk?

More than $2 billion hinges on that question as a trial kicks off on Monday. Shareholders allege that Musk used his control of Tesla to force the company in 2016 to rescue SolarCity, saving the solar panel maker – and Musk’s investment in the company – from bankruptcy.

The union pension funds and asset managers leading the case want Musk to repay to Tesla the cost of the $2.6 billion deal and to disgorge the profits on his SolarCity stock. If they win, it would be one of the largest judgments against an individual.

The two-week trial in the Court of Chancery in Wilmington, Delaware, will boil down to whether Musk, who owned about 22% of Tesla at the time of the deal, is that rare controlling stockholder who does not hold a majority stake.

“I think it’s going to be very hard for the court to ignore the reality that Elon Musk is Elon Musk and his relationship with Tesla,” said Ann Lipton, a professor at Tulane University Law School.

She said the case might present an unusual situation given Musk’s celebrity status, his personal ties to Tesla board members and those board members’ financial ties to SolarCity.

“Put it all together, and it might be enough to count as a controlling shareholder,” she said.

Few executives dominate their company’s image as much Musk, known for taunting regulators, battling naysayers and personally engaging with his 57 million Twitter followers.

“We are highly dependent on the services of Elon Musk, Technoking of Tesla and our Chief Executive Officer,” said Tesla’s 2020 annual report.

Plaintiffs allege that Musk drove the negotiations and even pushed Tesla’s board to raise, not lower, the price for SolarCity.

A higher price benefited Musk, who was the largest shareholder of SolarCity, with a stake of about 22%, as well as four members of Tesla’s board, who directly or indirectly owned SolarCity stock, according to court records.

Board members settled allegations against them last year for $60 million and did not admit to any fault.

Plaintiffs also allege the deal benefited two of Musk’s cousins who founded SolarCity, saving a company that was rapidly running low on cash.

Musk has said he was “fully recused” from board negotiations and that shareholders voted to approve the deal because it was central to his “Master Plan, Part Deux” that aims to integrate sustainable solar energy with electric self-driving cars.

He has said that what plaintiffs see as evidence of control is little more than strong management.

“Taken to its natural conclusion, virtually all ‘hands-on’ and ‘inspirational’ CEOs with minority stock ownership would be deemed controllers,” Musk’s lawyers wrote in a court filing.

If Vice Chancellor Joseph Slights determines Musk was a controlling shareholder, it will fall to Musk to prove the SolarCity deal met the high bar of the “entire fairness” standard, which examines process and price, said legal experts.

Musk has noted in court papers that the SolarCity deal has been a huge success for Tesla shareholders, demonstrating the deal was not only fair, but a boon. After Tesla split its stock 5-1 in 2020, it has risen to $652 on Thursday from near $37 a share when the deal closed in November 2016.

“If the vice chancellor thinks this deal was awful and was not effectively negotiated on behalf of the company, he’ll strike it down,” said Larry Hamermesh, a professor at Delaware Law School.

Reporting by Tom Hals in Wilmington, Delaware, and Sierra Jackson in New York;
Editing by Noeleen Walder and Dan Grebler

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Read original article here