Podcast appearances and mentions of Jones Day

Each month, a panel of constitutional experts convenes to discuss the Court’s upcoming docket sitting by sitting. The cases covered in this preview are listed below.Louisiana v. Callais (March 24) - Election law, Civil Rights; Issue(s): (1) Whether the majority of the three-judge district court in this case erred in finding that race predominated in the Louisiana legislature’s enactment of S.B. 8; (2) whether the majority erred in finding that S.B. 8 fails strict scrutiny; (3) whether the majority erred in subjecting S.B. 8 to the preconditions specified in Thornburg v. Gingles; and (4) whether this action is non-justiciable.Riley v. Bondi (March 24) - Immigration; Issue(s): (1) Whether 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1)'s 30-day deadline is jurisdictional, or merely a mandatory claims-processing rule that can be waived or forfeited; and (2) whether a person can obtain review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' decision in a withholding-only proceeding by filing a petition within 30 days of that decision.Environmental Protection Agency v. Calumet Shreveport Refining (March 25) - Jurisdiction, Federalism & Separation of Powers; Issue(s): Whether venue for challenges by small oil refineries seeking exemptions from the requirements of the Clean Air Act’s Renewable Fuel Standard program lies exclusively in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit because the agency’s denial actions are “nationally applicable” or, alternatively, are “based on a determination of nationwide scope or effect.”Oklahoma v. Environmental Protection Agency (March 25) - Jurisdiction, Federalism & Separation of Powers; Issue(s): Whether a final action by the Environmental Protection Agency taken pursuant to its Clean Air Act authority with respect to a single state or region may be challenged only in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit because the agency published the action in the same Federal Register notice as actions affecting other states or regions and claimed to use a consistent analysis for all states.Federal Communications Commission v. Consumers’ Research (March 26) - Federalism & Separation of Powers; Issue(s): (1) Whether Congress violated the nondelegation doctrine by authorizing the Federal Communications Commission to determine, within the limits set forth in 47 U.S.C. § 254, the amount that providers must contribute to the Universal Service Fund; (2) whether the FCC violated the nondelegation doctrine by using the financial projections of the private company appointed as the fund's administrator in computing universal service contribution rates; (3) whether the combination of Congress’s conferral of authority on the FCC and the FCC’s delegation of administrative responsibilities to the administrator violates the nondelegation doctrine; and (4) whether this case is moot in light of the challengers' failure to seek preliminary relief before the 5th Circuit.Catholic Charities Bureau v. Wisconsin Labor & Industry Review Commission (March 31) - First Amendment, Religion; Issue(s): Whether a state violates the First Amendment’s religion clauses by denying a religious organization an otherwise-available tax exemption because the organization does not meet the state’s criteria for religious behavior.Rivers v. Guerrero (March 31) - Criminal Law & Procedure; Issue(s): Whether 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2) applies only to habeas filings made after a prisoner has exhausted appellate review of his first petition, to all second-in-time habeas filings after final judgment, or to some second-in-time filings — depending on a prisoner’s success on appeal or ability to satisfy a seven-factor test.Fuld v. Palestine Liberation Organization (April 1) - Due Process, Fifth Amendment; Issue(s): Whether the Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act violates the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment.Kerr v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic (April 2) - Medicare; Issue(s): Whether the Medicaid Act’s any-qualified-provider provision unambiguously confers a private right upon a Medicaid beneficiary to choose a specific provider. Featuring:Allison Daniel, Attorney, Pacific Legal FoundationErielle Davidson, Associate, Holtzman VogelJennifer B. Dickey, Deputy Chief Counsel, U.S. Chamber Litigation Center, U.S. Chamber of CommerceElizabeth A. Kiernan, Associate Attorney, Gibson, Dunn & CrutcherMorgan Ratner, Partner, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP(Moderator) Sarah Welch, Issues & Appeals Associate, Jones Day

The Indianapolis community is celebrating Black history with three trailblazing federal judges.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana featured a conversation with all three.Inside the Birch Bayh Federal Building and courthouse, history, progress, and perseverance took center stage as the community gathered for a conversation with the Honorable Ann Claire Williams, Honorable Candace Jackson-Akiwumi, and Honorable Doris Pryor, all Black women who have made history in the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.Williams was the first woman of color to serve on a district court in the three-state Seventh Circuit after a nomination from President Bill Clinton. She was also the first judge of color to sit on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit and third Black woman to serve on any federal circuit court.She says it's an honor to be a part of living history with two other Black women.Williams, who's now retired from the bench and works at law firm Jones Day, says it's important in any career to think about the people who will come behind you.The judges discussed their journeys to the bench and the importance of representation, mentorship, and the impact of diversity on the justice system.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

This Day in Legal History: United States v. Peters DecidedOn February 20, 1809, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its ruling in United States v. Peters, a case that reinforced the authority of federal courts over state legislatures. The dispute arose when the Pennsylvania legislature attempted to defy a federal court order regarding a financial judgment. Chief Justice John Marshall, writing for the Court, held that allowing states to override federal judicial decisions would threaten the constitutional structure and weaken the judiciary's role as an independent branch of government. The ruling reaffirmed the supremacy of federal law, a principle later cemented by cases like McCulloch v. Maryland and Cooper v. Aaron.The case stemmed from a long-running legal battle over a prize ship seized during the Revolutionary War. A Pennsylvania state court had refused to comply with a federal ruling ordering restitution to the ship's rightful owners. In his opinion, Marshall emphasized that state governments could not interfere with federal judicial authority, warning that such actions would lead to anarchy. Pennsylvania resisted the decision, but the ruling set a lasting precedent that federal courts have the final say on legal disputes involving national law.This decision played a crucial role in shaping American federalism by ensuring that states could not undermine federal judicial power. It reinforced the constitutional principle that the judiciary must remain independent to uphold the rule of law. In doing so, United States v. Peters helped establish the judiciary as a coequal branch of government, capable of enforcing its decisions even in the face of state opposition.President Donald Trump has announced plans to nominate several former advisers from his first term to key Justice Department positions. John Eisenberg has been tapped to lead the national security division, while Brett Shumate will head the civil division. Shumate, currently acting in that role, has been involved in defending the administration against lawsuits related to federal worker dismissals and agency restructuring. He previously worked at the law firm Jones Day and defended Trump's unsuccessful attempt to limit birthright citizenship.  Eisenberg, who served as legal adviser to the National Security Council during Trump's first term, has held multiple senior roles in the Justice Department and clerked for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. Patrick Davis is set to lead the Office of Legislative Affairs, marking his third time in the department. All three appointments require Senate confirmation.  The nominations follow Trump's directive to remove all U.S. attorneys appointed by former President Joe Biden, claiming the Justice Department had been politicized. This move underscores Trump's continued efforts to reshape the department with loyalists from his previous administration.Trump picks first-term loyalists for top Justice Department posts | ReutersMastercard's £200 million settlement of a long-running lawsuit over card fees is facing opposition, raising concerns about the future of UK class action funding. The lawsuit, originally valued at £10 billion, was brought on behalf of 44 million British consumers, meaning each claimant would receive only about £2.27 if all sought payment. The deal is being challenged by litigation funder Innsworth Capital, which stands to receive half the settlement, arguing that the terms are unfair given its £45 million investment in the case.  The Competition Appeal Tribunal in London must now decide on the first contested settlement in the UK's emerging class action framework. The case comes amid growing uncertainty in the sector following a 2023 Supreme Court ruling that invalidated many litigation funding agreements. Further legal tests are expected, as the Court of Appeal is set to review funding arrangements for lawsuits against Apple and Sony later this year.  Consumer advocate Walter Merricks, who led the case, and Mastercard defend the settlement, stating that economic assessments now value the claim at under £200 million due to prior legal setbacks. The tribunal's decision could significantly impact future litigation funding in the UK.Mastercard landmark deal challenged in test for UK class action funding | ReutersA U.S. judge is scrutinizing a Justice Department request to drop corruption charges against New York City Mayor Eric Adams, raising concerns about political interference. The request, ordered by a Trump-appointed official, has led to multiple resignations within the Justice Department, with critics arguing it ties Adams' legal fate to his cooperation with Trump's immigration policies. Adams, facing reelection, has denied any wrongdoing, while some Democrats fear dismissing the case would make him indebted to the Trump administration. The Justice Department's request to drop the charges "without prejudice" leaves the possibility of future prosecution, a move former federal prosecutors warn could be used as leverage.  The judge overseeing the case, Dale Ho, is a former civil rights attorney and Biden appointee whose nomination faced Republican opposition. Ho has a background in voting rights advocacy and previously challenged Trump administration policies before the Supreme Court. His handling of the Adams case will be the most high-profile decision of his judicial career. Legal experts note that while Ho cannot force prosecutors to continue the case, he can question their motives, particularly the timing of a potential re-filing after the New York mayoral election.  This case underscores broader concerns about the Justice Department's independence under Trump, with critics accusing his administration of using federal prosecutions to reward allies and punish opponents. Adams has previously claimed, without evidence, that the charges were political retribution from the Biden administration. Meanwhile, New York's political establishment is divided, with some calling for Adams' resignation and others waiting to see how the case unfolds. Governor Kathy Hochul has reportedly met with political leaders to discuss Adams' future, further intensifying the controversy.US judge questions 'unusual' request to drop Eric Adams case | ReutersWho is Dale Ho, the judge deciding whether to drop Eric Adams' case? | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Based on AHLA's annual Health Law Connections article, this special series brings together thought leaders from across the health law field to discuss the top ten issues of 2025. In the fourth episode, H. Kristie Xian, Associate, Jones Day, speaks with Katherine I. Funk, Shareholder, Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz PC, about how the new administration might approach health care antitrust enforcement. They discuss the new Merger Guidelines, the revised Hart-Scott-Rodino filing rules, the interim report on pharmacy benefit managers, and where enforcement may diverge from the prior administration. From AHLA's Antitrust Practice Group.Watch the conversation here.AHLA's Health Law Daily Podcast Is Here! AHLA's popular Health Law Daily email newsletter is now a daily podcast, exclusively for AHLA Premium members. Get all your health law news from the major media outlets on this new podcast! To subscribe and add this private podcast feed to your podcast app, go to americanhealthlaw.org/dailypodcast.

This week's guest, Marla Crawford, is a respected attorney, strategic advisor, and thought leader with over 35 years of experience in the legal industry. She currently serves as general counsel at Cimplifi, an integrated legal services provider that leverages technology to simplify the experience of eDiscovery and contract analytics for law firms and legal departments. For 22 years, Marla practiced law at the international firm Jones Day, focusing on the discovery phase of litigation. She also served as associate general counsel for Goldman Sachs for 11 years, where she led the firm's global eDiscovery practice and focused on complex commercial and securities litigation and regulatory investigations. Additionally, Marla was part of the inaugural class of the Education Advisory Council of the Corporate Legal Operations Consortium (CLOC). Today, she advises on issues relating to information governance as well as the deployment of new technologies. Marla also speaks regularly on legal tech, eDiscovery, and information governance issues. In our conversation, Marla discusses how her father inspired her to become a lawyer, her involvement at the early stages of eDiscovery, why transparency is so important in adopting legal tech, and how generative AI has stimulated demand for other legal tech adoption.

Markets get a gut punch on the wild AI ride. Big tech reporting – some interesting moves. Inflation – PCE inline. And our guest, Carson Block, Founder of Muddy Waters Research  NEW! DOWNLOAD THIS EPISODE'S AI GENERATED SHOW NOTES (Guest Segment) Carson Block is the Chief Investment Officer of Muddy Waters Capital LLC, an activist investment firm.  Muddy Waters conducts extensive due diligence based investment research on companies around the globe. Mr. Block is also the founder of Zer0es TV (www.zer0es.tv), an online channel dedicated to short selling related video content. Bloomberg Markets Magazine named Mr. Block as one of the “50 Most Influential in Global Finance” in 2011.  The following year, Muddy Waters received the prestigious Boldness in Business Award from the Financial Times. In September 2015, Mr. Block was featured in the book, The Most Dangerous Trade: How Short Sellers Uncover Fraud, Keep Markets Honest, and Make and Lose Billions, by former Bloomberg writer Richard Teitelbaum. He is also featured in the 2018 documentary The China Hustle. Mr. Block appears frequently as a commentator on Bloomberg Television, CNBC and the BBC. He has written op-eds in the Wall Street Journal, Financial Times, and New York Times on various topics related to improving corporate governance and market transparency.  Prior to forming Muddy Waters, Mr. Block was an entrepreneur in China and worked as a lawyer in the Shanghai office of the U.S. law firm Jones Day. In 2007, he co-authored Doing Business in China for Dummies, a primer on doing business in China.  He holds a B.S. in business from the University of Southern California and a J.D. from the Chicago-Kent College of Law, where he has also served as an adjunct professor. Follow @muddywatersre Learn More at http://www.ibkr.com/funds Follow @andrewhorowitz Looking for style diversification? More information on the TDI Managed Growth Strategy - https://thedisciplinedinvestor.com/blog/tdi-strategy/ eNVESTOLOGY Info - https://envestology.com/ Stocks mentioned in this episode: (CVNA), (TSLA), (GLD), (VNM)

Regulators around the world have raised antitrust concerns over concentrated control of key inputs into AI development and deployment, with access to cloud computing as one area of focus. What are the key concerns and proposed actions? A panel of experts from Argentina, Brazil, and the U.S. speak with Koren Wong-Ervin and Anora Wang on thoughts on the theories of harm, as well as possible efficiencies and benefits to various business arrangements and other conduct. Listen to this episode to hear from Gustavo Augusto Freitas de Lima (Commissioner of Brazil's CADE), Alexis Pirchio (President of Argentina's CNDC), Helder Agostinho (Deputy Assistant Director of the U.S. FTC's Technology Enforcement Division), and Thomas DeMatteo (Chief Counsel on the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee to Senator Mike Lee). With special guests: Gustavo Augusto Freitas de Lima, Commissioner, CADE Alexis Pirchio, President, CNDC Helder Agostinho, Deputy Assistant Director of Technology Enforcement Division, FTC Thomas DeMatteo, Chief Counsel on the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee to Senator Mike Lee Related Links: Full Panel Discussion (Dec. 8, 2024)  Hosted by: Anora Wang, Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP and Koren Wong-Ervin, Jones Day

Joe Wolfe, Attorney, Hall Render Killian Heath & Lyman PC, speaks with Laura Laemmle-Weidenfeld, Partner, Jones Day, about some of the key health care fraud and abuse trends from 2024 and what to expect in 2025. Laura is the author of the 2024 Cumulative Supplement to the Fifth Edition of AHLA's Legal Issues in Health Care Fraud and Abuse. From AHLA's Fraud and Abuse Practice Group.Watch the conversation here.AHLA's Health Law Daily Podcast Is Here! AHLA's popular Health Law Daily email newsletter is now a daily podcast, exclusively for AHLA Premium members. Get all your health law news from the major media outlets on this new podcast! To subscribe and add this private podcast feed to your podcast app, go to americanhealthlaw.org/dailypodcast.

The boys return to talk about another Saturday pick 5 sequence! They take a look at Oaklawn Park's Smarty Jones Day late pick 5 this Saturday, 1/4/2025! They give their best horse racing picks and horse racing bets for the sequnce and even talk a little bit about R-Word strength.FOLLOW The Notorious OTB On Social MediaTwitter - https://twitter.com/notorious_otbFOLLOW The Hosts On Social MediaChase Sessoms -https://twitter.com/OfOaklawn JOIN the SGPN community #DegensOnlyExclusive Merch, Contests and Bonus Episodes ONLY on Patreon - https://sg.pn/patreonDiscuss with fellow degens on Discord - https://sg.pn/discordDownload The Free SGPN App - https://sgpn.appCheck out the Sports Gambling Podcast on YouTube - https://sg.pn/YouTubeCheck out our website - http://sportsgamblingpodcast.comSUPPORT us by supporting our partnersUnderdog Fantasy code SGPN - Up to $1000 in BONUS CASH - https://play.underdogfantasy.com/p-sgpnRithmm - Player Props and Picks - Free 7 day trial! http://sportsgamblingpodcast.com/rithmmRebet - Social sportsbook - 100% deposit match promo code SGPN in your app store! ADVERTISE with SGPNInterested in advertising? Contact sales@sgpn.io WATCH the Sports Gambling PodcastYouTube - https://sg.pn/YouTubeTwitch - https://sg.pn/TwitchFOLLOW The Sports Gambling Podcast On Social MediaTwitter - http://www.twitter.com/gamblingpodcastInstagram - http://www.instagram.com/sportsgamblingpodcastTikTok - https://www.tiktok.com/@gamblingpodcastFacebook - http://www.facebook.com/sportsgamblingpodcastFOLLOW The Hosts On Social MediaSean Green - http://www.twitter.com/seantgreenRyan Kramer - http://www.twitter.com/kramercentric Gambling problem? Call 1-800-GAMBLER CO, DC, IL, IN, LA, MD, MS, NJ, OH, PA, TN, VA, WV, WY Call 877-8-HOPENY or text HOPENY (467369) (NY) Call 1-800-327-5050 (MA)21+ to wager. Please Gamble Responsibly. Call 1-800-NEXT-STEP (AZ), 1-800-522-4700 (KS, NV), 1-800 BETS-OFF (IA), 1-800-270-7117 for confidential help (MI)

On a bonus episode following up on Wednesday morning's show, Andrew and Bill react to the news—which broke later Wednesday morning—that the Supreme Court has granted cert to TikTok in its appeal of the D.C. Circuit's decision earlier this month upholding the Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act. Topics include: A bit more hope for TikTok, revisiting the D.C. Circuit's answer to the First Amendment question that's now before the Supreme Court, various Trump unknowns, and a busy holiday season for Jones Day associates.

Gerald Griffith, Partner, Jones Day, and Stephanie N. Switzer, Senior Counsel, Cleveland Clinic, discuss, in top ten style, common audit risks for nonprofit health care organizations and strategies for minimizing potential tax exposure. Gerald and Stephanie spoke about this topic at the 2024 Annual Meeting in Washington, DC.Learn more about the 2025 Annual Meeting in San Diego, CA here.New Health Law Daily Podcast Coming in January 2025 Coming in January 2025, AHLA's popular Health Law Daily email newsletter will also be available as a daily podcast, exclusively for AHLA Premium members. Listen to all the current health law news from the major media outlets on this new podcast! Subscribe Now

In the field of legal knowledge management and innovation, Sally Gonzalez is both a legend and a trailblazer. Over the course of her 40-year career, she has worked for some of the world's largest law firms to develop and lead KM and strategic technology initiatives. She has overseen KM and information technology programs at such global firms as Norton Rose Fulbright, Dentons, Akin Gump, Covington & Burling, and Jones Day, and been a strategic consultant at major consulting firms including HBR, Navigant, PwC and, most recently, Fireman & Company,  Gonzalez surprised some of those who attended the Knowledge Management and Innovation for Legal Conference held in New York City in October, where she was the keynote speaker, when she announced her retirement there and was recognized by her peers for her decades of contributions to the legal industry. That made her keynote, in which she spoke about core principles for successful KM, her swan song, of sorts.  Following her keynote, LawNext host Bob Ambrogi, who was at the conference, sat down with Gonzalez to record this conversation about her thoughts on KM, innovation, AI, culture, change management, and much more.    Thank You To Our Sponsors This episode of LawNext is generously made possible by our sponsors. We appreciate their support and hope you will check them out. Paradigm, home to the practice management platforms PracticePanther, Bill4Time, MerusCase and LollyLaw; the e-payments platform Headnote; and the legal accounting software TrustBooks. Briefpoint, eliminating routine discovery response and request drafting tasks so you can focus on drafting what matters (or just make it home for dinner). Littler, local everywhere.  Steno, reliable court reporting with a revolutionary approach   If you enjoy listening to LawNext, please leave us a review wherever you listen to podcasts.  

Conrad Everhard, founder of Flatiron Law Group discusses his career trajectory from Georgetown University to becoming a partner at Big Law firms Jones Day and Brian Cave. He explains why he left BigLaw to found Flatiron Law Group, to provide a more cost effective and efficient way to offer legal services to clients involved in mergers and acquisitions. To do so, the firm leverages a multi-pronged model: flat fees, low overhead, general contract labor to assist with the more labor intensive parts of an M&A deal, and advanced technology, including the firm's own custom build Deal Driver software that provides the clients with data and other insight about the deals they are working on. Conrad also talks about his work with Stanford's Codex project, where he is helping develop an AI based negotiation simulator to train young lawyers in M&A deals. He highlights the importance of capturing the decision-making process of senior lawyers to effectively guide the AI model. Key Discussion Points & Timestamps: Transition from Big Law to Entrepreneurship: [0:40 - 13:03] The Flatiron Model: [14:16 - 26:48] Work with Codex and AI in Legal Training: [26:48 - 33:00] Resources & Links: Flatiron Law website: flatiron.legal Episode Credits Production: Grant Blackstock Theme Music: Home Base (Instrumental Version) by TA2MI   Want to keep up to date about new episodes? Technically Legal Update List. Want to learn more about Percipient (percipient.co)? Follow Chad on Linkedin: Chad Main | LinkedIn Follow the podcast on LinkedIn: Technically Legal | LinkedIn Follow the podcast on Instagram: Technically Legal | Instagram Follow the podcast on X: Technically Legal | X  

Pratik Chougule and Mick Bransfield discuss why the courts are allowing Kalshi to offer election markets for now, and provide an update on the litigation between Kalshi and the CFTC. Timestamps  0:00: Introduction begins 0:20: 2024 elections and prediction markets 0:31: Victory for Polymarket 1:53: Kalshi legal case 7:09: Interview with Bransfield begins 7:28: Bransfield joins Coalition for Political Forecasting 8:06: District court case 10:37: Gaming 15:45: Jia Cobb's ruling 18:17: DC Circuit appeal 18:30: DC Circuit court judges 30:43: Perception of harm from election contracts 33:07: Foreign prediction markets 35:27: Behnam comments on UK betting scandal 36:33: Kid Rock manipulation anecdote 38:33: Manipulation in prediction markets Follow Star Spangled Gamblers on Twitter @ssgamblers Trade on Polymarket.com, the world's largest prediction market. Sign up for the Forecasting Meetup Network: https://forecastingmeetupnetwork.kit.com/eb6374e5e8

This Day in Legal History: BBC FoundedOn October 18, 1922, the British Broadcasting Company (BBC) was founded, a significant development in media law and broadcasting regulation. The BBC was established as a private corporation, but it was under significant government oversight from the start. The British government, through the Post Office, issued the first broadcasting license to the BBC, marking the beginning of public broadcasting in the United Kingdom. This laid the foundation for legal frameworks governing media, free speech, and public interest in broadcasting. The regulatory framework for the BBC was formalized with the 1927 Royal Charter, establishing it as a public corporation funded by a license fee paid by UK households with a television set. This model influenced media law around the world, as it balanced government oversight with editorial independence, a crucial tension in media law. The Charter also emphasized the BBC's duty to inform, educate, and entertain, principles that have been reflected in subsequent legal debates about public broadcasting globally.This founding event has had lasting effects on how media is regulated, ensuring that broadcasters serve the public interest while maintaining freedom from government control. The creation of the BBC contributed to the evolution of modern media law, particularly in areas concerning state influence, media independence, and the regulation of public broadcasters.A lawsuit by former Jones Day associates Mark Savignac and Julia Sheketoff, accusing the firm of gender discrimination in its parental leave policy, is set for trial on November 7, 2025. The couple claims that the firm's policy unfairly grants new mothers extra leave based on an assumed eight-week postpartum disability period, violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Equal Pay Act, and the D.C. Human Rights Act. The court ruled that a jury could question the medical basis of the policy, warranting a trial. Before the trial, the parties are required to attempt mediation with Magistrate Judge G. Michael Harvey, though Jones Day expressed skepticism about reaching a settlement. The lawsuit also involves claims of retaliation, as Savignac alleges he was fired after challenging the policy, while Sheketoff had already left the firm. Both represent themselves in the case.Jones Day 'Dad Leave' Case Headed to Mediation, Gets Trial DateAhead of the November 5, 2024, U.S. election, several battleground states are warning local officials that interfering with voting or delaying result certification could lead to criminal charges or financial penalties. States such as Arizona, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin have investigated and charged officials who attempted to disrupt elections in previous cycles. Pennsylvania officials, for example, threatened criminal misdemeanor charges against a local county manager who blocked the use of mail-in ballot drop boxes. In Arizona, two officials are facing felony charges for delaying vote certification in 2022.The focus on preventing election interference is driven by concerns over unfounded fraud claims and ensuring that the results are certified on time. States have tightened oversight, with penalties including fines, jail time, or responsibility for recount costs. Local officials have been reminded that the certification process is a legal requirement, not an opportunity to challenge election outcomes.US states warn officials: Delaying, tampering with vote could bring criminal charges | ReutersA Florida judge issued a temporary restraining order prohibiting the DeSantis administration from threatening to prosecute TV stations airing ads in support of the state's abortion rights referendum. The ads, promoted by the coalition Floridians Protecting Freedom, advocate for the November ballot amendment that would secure abortion access until fetal viability (around 24-28 weeks), countering Florida's six-week ban enacted earlier this year. The state's Department of Health had previously sent cease-and-desist letters to TV stations, claiming the ads were false. The judge ruled that political advertisements are protected by the First Amendment, preventing further state actions against broadcasters until a preliminary injunction hearing on October 29.Florida judge grants temporary restraining order over abortion measure adsThis week's closing theme is by Franz Liszt.This week, we close with the music of one of history's most legendary composers and pianists, who passed away on October 19, 1886. Liszt was not only a virtuoso performer but also a revolutionary composer whose works pushed the boundaries of classical music. Born in Hungary, Liszt dazzled 19th-century Europe with his unmatched piano skills, and his compositions remain staples in the concert repertoire to this day. He pioneered new musical forms, including the symphonic poem, and was deeply influenced by both Hungarian folk music and the Romantic spirit of the time.Liszt's compositions span a wide range of emotions and technical demands, showcasing both his artistic depth and virtuosity. As a composer, he sought to transcend traditional boundaries, and his works often reflect a blend of dazzling technical skill and deep emotional complexity. Among his most celebrated compositions is the "Hungarian Rhapsody No. 2," which we've chosen as our closing theme this week. This piece is iconic for its vibrant energy, dramatic shifts, and a playful yet powerful use of Hungarian folk melodies. From the slow, brooding introduction to its whirlwind conclusion, it perfectly encapsulates Liszt's ability to captivate both performers and audiences. As we listen to this work, we remember the profound legacy Liszt left behind, a legacy that continues to inspire musicians and music lovers around the world.Without further ado, Franz Liszt's Hungarian Rhapsody No. 2, enjoy.  This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Azeem reports on the latest personal changes in the industry •Stephenson Harwood strengthens Middle East construction practice with Ron Nobbs relocating from London. •Jones Day announces Rodney Moore, Samuel Peca, and Scott Delaney joining as partners in corporate and Energy Transition & Infrastructure. •Nanda Kamat leaving MUFG after 15 years to take a new role. •Kristian Bradshaw joins Hunton Andrews Kurth in Tokyo from White & Case. •Vinita Sithapathy joins Mayer Brown in New York as a partner from Freshfields. •Joe Taylor joins Apterra Infrastructure Capital as managing director from NatWest. •Latham & Watkins hires Scott Cockerham in Washington, D.C., from A&O Shearman. •OX2 CFO Johan Rydmark to step down in April 2025. •EU Commission selects Danish politician Dan Jorgensen as energy commissioner. •Kenny Cheramusak becomes CFO of Apex Clean Energy from ContourGlobal. •Stephenson Harwood adds Sushil Verma as a partner in Financial Markets Practice from Simmons & Simmons. •Meyer Burger CEO Gunter Erfurt steps down; Franz Richter becomes chairman.

Pratik Chougule summarizes the latest developments in the legal battle between Kalshi and the CFTC on election betting. Pratik Chougule and Mick Bransfield do a deep dive into the CFTC's arguments in front of DC federal district court Judge Jia Cobb.  Timestamps 0:00: Pratik introduces segment with Bransfield 1:43: Update on latest in Kalshi-CFTC legal battle 9:34: Bransfield segment begins 11:18: CFTC counsel's poor presentation 20:33: Definition of a contest 21:47: Market manipulation 27:02: Cobb's concerns 27:29: CFTC's arguments about gaming 29:34: Importance of public comments to CFTC 25:38: DC Forecasting and Prediction Markets Meetup Show Notes September 26 DC Forecasting and Prediction Markets Meetup RSVP: https://partiful.com/e/zpObY6EmiQEkgpcJB6Aw DC Forecasting and Prediction Markets Meetup Manifund: https://manifund.org/projects/forecasting-meetup-network---washington-dc-pilot-4-meetups For more information on the meetup, DM David Glidden @dglid. Trade on Polymarket.com, the world's largest prediction market. Follow Star Spangled Gamblers on Twitter @ssgamblers.

In the most recent episode of Drinks With The Deal, Randi Lesnick, co-chair of the corporate practice, discusses key deals in her career and issues that AI raises both for law firms and for companies doing deals.

Megyn Kelly is an American journalist, television personality, and host of "The Megyn Kelly Show." Prior to her television career, Kelly practiced law, graduating from Albany Law School and working at renowned law firm Jones Day before transitioning to journalism. She is best known for her work as a television news anchor. Kelly gained critical acclaim as a Fox News Channel anchor, where she hosted "The Kelly File" and earned a reputation for her sharp interviewing skills and unique style. In 2017, she left Fox News to join NBC News, where she hosted "Megyn Kelly Today." Her career has been marked by high-profile interviews and coverage of major news events. Shawn Ryan Show Sponsors: https://meetfabric.com/shawn https://betterhelp.com/shawn https://drinkhoist.com - USE CODE "SHAWN" https://www.fxnetworks.com/shows/the-old-man https://ShawnLikesGold.com | 855-936-GOLD #goldcopartner Megyn Kelly Links: IG - https://www.instagram.com/megynkelly x - https://x.com/megynkelly FB - https://www.facebook.com/MegynKelly TikTok - https://www.tiktok.com/@megynkellyshow YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/c/MegynKelly Podcast - https://www.megynkelly.com/listen Website - https://www.megynkelly.com Please leave us a review on Apple & Spotify Podcasts. Vigilance Elite/Shawn Ryan Links: Website | Patreon | TikTok | Instagram | Download Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Part I: Pratik Chougule and Mick Bransfield analyze Kalshi's case against the CFTC in federal court Part II: Jared Whitley discusses political trends among Mormons and other high-achieving minority groups Timestamps 0:00: Pratik introduces Kalshi segment 0:51: Pratik introduces Whitley segment 2:12: Mormon vote in Arizona and Nevada 3:30: Cuban-American vote in Florida 6:23: Segment on Kalshi begins 6:29: Jones Day 9:13: Joshua Sterling 10:50: Yaakov Roth 11:14: Amanda Rice 11:39: Kalshi's gaming argument 14:05: Kalshi's public interest argument 14:45: Lack of expertise on prediction markets 15:35: Factual errors 16:40: Kalshi references Chougule's comment letter 19:51: Attendees at the Hearing 21:08: Importance of legal arguments 22:10: Judge's reaction to Kalshi 23:11: Segment with Whitley begins 23:34: The Triple Package 24:09: Mormon influence in politics 25:11: Protestant alliances 25:48: Romney-Santorum battle in 2012 26:19: High-achieving minority groups 27:02: Cuban-Americans 29:31: Mormons moving left 35:27: Utah housing affordability 36:29: Federal lands in Utah 37:55: Blue state refugees in Utah Follow Star Spangled Gamblers on Twitter @ssgamblers Coalition for Political Forecasting: https://coalitionforpoliticalforecasting.org/ Markets Referenced Trade on Polymarket.com, the world's largest prediction market. Arizona Presidential Election Winner: https://polymarket.com/event/arizona-presidential-election-winner?tid=1725129552556 Arizona Senate Election Winner: https://polymarket.com/event/arizona-us-senate-election-winner?tid=1725129686645 AZ-06 election: Engel (D) vs. Ciscomani (R): https://polymarket.com/event/az-06-election-engel-d-vs-ciscomani-r/az-06-election-engel-d-vs-ciscomani-r?tid=1725129720295 AZ-01 election: Shah (D) vs. Schweikert (R): https://polymarket.com/event/az-01-election-shah-d-vs-schweikert-r/az-01-election-shah-d-vs-schweikert-r?tid=1725129749517 Nevada Presidential Election Winner: https://polymarket.com/event/nevada-presidential-election-winner?tid=1725129799530 Nevada Senate Election Winner: https://polymarket.com/event/nevada-us-senate-election-winner?tid=1725129834707 Utah Presidential Election Winner: https://polymarket.com/event/utah-presidential-election-winner?tid=1725129848259 Utah Senate Election Winner: https://polymarket.com/event/utah-us-senate-election-winner?tid=1725129890027 Utah Governor Election Winner: https://polymarket.com/event/utah-governor-election-winner?tid=1725129905105 Florida Presidential Election Winner: https://polymarket.com/event/florida-presidential-election-winner?tid=1725129967776 Florida Senate Election Winner: https://polymarket.com/event/florida-us-senate-election-winner?tid=1725129994668 Tipping Point State: https://polymarket.com/event/us-election-tipping-point-state?tid=1725130009469

Pharmaceutical company Merck & Co., Inc. (Merck) filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) challenging the Medicare drug price negotiation program established by the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022. Merck argues that the drug pricing program violates the First Amendment and the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, claiming it forces them to accept government-dictated prices and infringes on their property rights. The federal government, represented by HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra and others, contends that Merck's arguments are unfounded and that the negotiation program is essential for reducing drug costs and ensuring the financial stability of Medicare. The case could significantly impact drug pricing, Medicare costs, and federal regulatory authority in healthcare.The case was filed on June 6, 2023, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. On October 19, 2023, Merck filed an amended complaint adding its subsidiary Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC as a second plaintiff. The case is ongoing, with both parties having filed motions for summary judgment.Join us for a litigation update on Merck et al. v. Becerra et al. with Yaakov M. Roth, one of the lead attorneys at Jones Day representing Merck & Co., Inc.

Federal Circuit Judge Timothy Dyk discusses his memoir and provides priceless insights into how the Federal Circuit is operating today - 42 years after it was created in 1982 and 24 years after Dyk was confirmed to serve on it in 2000.This episode explores Dyk's perspectives on judges serving together at the Federal Circuit. His reflections and anecdotes offer a unique glimpse into the workings of the Federal Circuit, the decision-making process of a seasoned appellate judge, and various debates surrounding the Federal Circuit and judges retiring.Dyk was nominated to the Federal Circuit in 1998 by President Bill Clinton after clerking for Earl Warren at the Supreme Court and a distinguished career as an appellate attorney at the law firms of Wilmer Cutler and Jones Day. Selected Topics:* First introduction to patent law: office linoleum floors & yacht named Pat Pending* Role of chief judges setting court dynamics* Collegiality, dissents, and importance of individual personalities & relationships among judges* Judge Dyk's process for considering cases before oral arguments* Dyk's defense of Rule 36 decisions and insights into other Federal Circuit practices* Panel dependency & skepticism of empirical scholarship related to judicial decisions* Former clerks arguing cases before judges they clerked for* Providing additional jurisdiction to Federal Circuit* Cameras in federal courtrooms & privacy in intra-court deliberations* Judicial retirement decisions and importance of humility* Advice for effective oral and written advocacy before the Federal Circuit, including for amicus briefsNotable, Quotable:Biggest challenge"I think the biggest challenge for any Federal Circuit Judge in patent cases in particular is is dealing with the technology . . . getting the help that you need to understand the technology. It's really hard. And we need help from the bar, we need help from our clerks, and we need to be willing to spend a lot of time to wade through it."Role of collegiality"Collegiality makes for better decision making, first of all. And second of all, it makes it a nicer place to be. You get along with your colleagues. The job is a lot better."Qualities of best written briefs"A brief that is candid about what's going on, that recognizes that there's another side to it, that's nothing shrill, that's statesman like, that's objective. Those are the qualities that we value most."On Judge Pauline Newman“I always enjoyed sitting with Judge Newman. I enjoyed having Judge Newman as a colleague and occasionally we did panels together. I remember we went to NYU and presented ourselves as being close colleagues even though we disagreed a lot of the time. Judge Newman was a terrific colleague, and I enjoyed being her friend.”Disclaimer This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.voiceofip.com

Each week, the leading journalists in legal tech choose their top stories of the week to discuss with our other panelists.   This week's topics: 00:00 - Introductions 04:30 - Maybe Don't Tweet That Destroying Evidence Subject To Lit Hold Is A Good Idea? Retired Jones Day Partner scoffs at Google anti trust ruling (selected by Joe Patrice) 13:52 - David v. Goliath Trial Begins this Month in Case that Challenges Thomson Reuter's Longstanding Copyrights in Legal Research Materials (Selected by Bob Ambrogi) 20:55 - Delta v. CrowdStrike and Microsoft should make for one hell of a lawsuit (Selected by Stephen Embry) 27:00 - ChatGPT Wrapper' Is This Year's Hottest Snub—But Why? (Selected by Stephanie Wilkins) 42:25 - Texas Supreme Court Preliminarily Approves Delivery of Legal Services by Licensed Paraprofessionals (Selected by Bob Ambrogi) 47:20 - Dutch Judge's Use of ChatGPT Prompts Outrage, Disbelief in the Netherland (Selected by Stephanie Wilkins)

Part I: Pratik Chougule offers his thoughts on what to say in comments to the CFTC on its event contracts proposal. Part II: Mick Bransfield discusses the federal judge who will decide the lawsuit between Kalshi and the CFTC Timestamps 1:40: How to submit a comment to the CFTC 2:57: How to watch the CFTC Open Meeting on YouTube 3:43: What to write to the CFTC 5:38: The CFTC's goal with its event contracts proposal 7:39: What kind of comments will move the needle 12:36: Questions about enforcement in the proposal 13:44: Political betting moving offshore 15:17: Delaying the rule 17:23: Need for a balancing test 22:36: Interview with Bransfield begins 28:31: Jia Cobb 34:32: Ignorance about prediction markets 38:36: Gambling references on Kalshi's website CFTC Proposal on Event Contracts: https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/8907-24 SUPPORT US: Patreon: www.patreon.com/starspangledgamblers FOLLOW US ON SOCIAL: Twitter: www.twitter.com/ssgamblers VISIT OUR WEBPAGE: www.starspangledgamblers.com Trade on Polymarket, the world's largest prediction market, at polymarket.com

“First Gen” law students and lawyers often face challenges different than those encountered by their peers. In this edition of Perspectives and Pathways, Jones Day partner Rasha Shields and associate Eli Jones talk about their backgrounds, discuss making the move from law school to life as a lawyer, and share tips for students and new lawyers coming from similar circumstances. Read the full transcript.

Attorneys, especially those at the country's largest firms, have long tended to favor Democratic candidates. But lawyers are especially enthusiastic about the nascent presidential campaign of Kamala Harris. That's according to reporting from the guests on today's episode of our On The Merits podcast, reporters Tatyana Monnay and Brian Baxter. They talk about why Big Law attorneys are so strongly backing Harris and what this might mean for Big Law's influence on her administration next year if she wins in November. Monnay and Baxter also talk about Donald Trump's avoidance of Big Law after go-to Republican firm Jones Day decided to cut its relationship with him. Do you have feedback on this episode of On The Merits? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

In 2017, New York passed a law requiring employers to cover abortions in their health insurance plans. New York initially planned to exempt religious employers with sincere religious objections but later changed the exemption to protect only religious entities whose purpose is to inculcate religious values and who primarily employ and serve coreligionists. This exempted non-objecting ministries while leaving many religious groups that do object unprotected. Several of these unprotected religious groups—including an order of Anglican nuns, Roman Catholic dioceses, and Baptist and Lutheran churches—sued New York, arguing that the law forced them to violate their deeply held religious beliefs. The New York courts ruled against the religious groups and in 2021, represented by Jones Day and Becket, the groups asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear its case. The Supreme Court granted the petition, vacated the bad rulings from the New York state courts, and told the state courts to reconsider the case in light of Fulton v. City of Philadelphia. But on May 21, 2024, the New York Court of Appeals found Fulton inapplicable and again upheld the abortion mandate. The religious groups’ cert petition is due on August 18, 2024. Featuring:Lori Windham, Vice President and Senior Counsel, The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty(Moderator) Whitney Hermandorfer, Director of Strategic Litigation Unit, Office of the Tennessee Attorney General

How do you build trust with investors who tap you for the CEO role? How do you prepare yourself to lead companies through some of their toughest moments, including bankruptcy, and guide other companies through their transformations as a board member?Chelsea Grayson, managing partner of corporate restructuring at Pivot > and former CEO and board member of brands like American Apparel, True Religion, and Spark Networks, has steered many ships through rough waters, including post-chapter 11 turnarounds, corporate wind-downs, and firing CEOs for cause. She has transitioned from board member to operator and back again, and is currently sharing her expertise on the boards of Xponential Fitness and Beyond Meat.Listen as Chelsea discusses her legendary journey from law firm partner to GC, CEO, Board Member, and now managing partner of an all-star corporate restructuring company, and offers tips to lawyers who are looking to find a board seat.Read detailed summary: https://www.spotdraft.com/podcast/episode-46Topics:Introduction: 0:00Rising to partner at Jones Day and Loeb & Loeb, two big LA-based law firms: 3:00Transition to in-house legal (and a CEO role) at American Apparel: 9:35Tips for building relationships with investors: 15:11Managing CEO transitions: 18:34Joining boards and positioning yourself as a good board member: 26:30Becoming CEO of True Religion Jeans during a turnaround: 34:19Sitting on the board of Sugarf ina after a bankruptcy turnaround: 37:45Stepping into a tech CEO role at Spark Networks: 42:00Founding Pivot >, a corporate restructuring company: 47:39Book recommendations: 55:08What you wish you'd known as a young lawyer: 58:10Connect with us:Chelsea Grayson: https://www.linkedin.com/in/chelseagrayson24/Tyler Finn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/tylerhfinnSpotDraft: https://www.linkedin.com/company/spotdraftSpotDraft is a leading CLM platform that solves your end-to-end contract management issues. Visit https://www.spotdraft.com to learn more.

Join us on Passive Investing from Left Field as we chat with Adam Jason, the entrepreneurial force behind Green Coffee Company. Discover how Adam transitioned from a corporate lawyer to a coffee industry innovator in Colombia, turning coffee byproducts into profitable ventures and aiming for a 5x return on investments. Don't miss this insightful episode on sustainable coffee practices, the challenges of operating in Latin America, and the future of the coffee industry. Subscribe and hit the bell icon to stay updated!  About Adam Jason Adam Jason is a Partner of Legacy Group. Before joining Legacy Group, Adam worked for two international law firms, Jones Day and Vinson & Elkins, where he advised leading Fortune 500 companies and investment banks in the areas of corporate finance, corporate governance, securities regulation and international business transactions, and represented them in public and private debt and equity offerings exceeding an aggregate of $10 billion.Here are some power takeaways from today's conversation:01:42 His journey06:07 How they vary from the norm in their industry08:36 What have they done differently than big companies that helped them succeed? 12:00 Operating in Latin America as a US-based company14:07 Small farm scaling up 15:31 Weathering inflation18:27 Mistakes passive investors make in their asset class21:27 Coffee is a recession-free product 22:42 Underwriting his deals26:05 Biggest risk with this asset class 28:55 Where is the product located?32:10 Podcast Recommendations 33:08 Contact Adam This show is for entertainment purposes only. Nothing said on the show should be considered financial advice. Before making any decisions, consult a professional. This show is copyrighted by Passive Investing from Left Field and Left Field Investors. Written permissions must be granted before syndication or rebroadcasting.       Podcast Recommendations:All in Podcast: https://www.allinpodcast.co/Resources Mentioned:Contact the guest:Social MediaLinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/adam-jason-98a22612/YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@legacygroup9109/featuredGreen Coffee Company Products only available in the US: https://www.greencoffeecompany.com/Advertising Partners:Midloch:https://midloch.com/Vyzer:https://vyzer.co/Left Field Investors:https://www.leftfieldinvestors.com/Rust Belt Capitalhttps://rustbeltcapital.com/Tribevest: https://www.tribevest.com/Avoiding Rookie Errors as a Left Field Investor: 20 Lessons Learned From 14 Years of Passive Investing in Private Syndications by Steve Suhhttps://www.leftfieldinvestors.com/books/

Today Laura and Kevin speak with Ray Rivard. We talk about legal and ethical considerations with Generative AI. We talk about the complaint against Adobe for selling AI-generated imitations Ansel Adams' work. We talk Sarah Silverman suing OpenAI and other IP claims and copyright issues with GenAI. We talk about replacing Al Michaels with an AI bot. We hear Ray's origin story and get his advise on being an IP lawyer in 2024. We also chat about who is liable when GenAI breaks the law. This pod has it all including going deep on accountability and the need for guardrails on GenAI. You don't want to miss this one! Ray Rivard currently serves as Senior Director for the Federal Government Sector for Prevail.ai.  In his role, he devises and promotes solutions for government agencies, government contractors, and law firms, utilizing Prevail's artificial intelligence (AI) tools and processes.  Prior to his current role, Ray was the Senior Information Technology Specialist for the eDiscovery Group within the Legal Information Technology Unit for the FDIC's Legal Division. His specialties included devising and integrating best practices in failed bank data collection, preservation, authentication, processing, review, analytics, and production. Ray has provided technical expert testimony in civil and criminal court hearings across the United States; filed declarations and affidavits as an expert in numerous federal courts; participated in meet & confer conferences with opposing parties in failed bank litigation matters; and revised and modified ESI protocols, protective orders, and joint discovery plans. Prior to joining the federal government, Ray spent nearly two decades handling large litigation matters for several D.C.-based law firms, including Jones Day, Wilmer, Mayer Brown, and DLA Piper.   

We're back! Yet again! Apologies for another long absence, and a sincere thank you to all of our listeners who reached out in the interim. We'll get into more details on where we've been in the next episode, but we weren't going to miss our annual Doug Jones Day celebration. This year it was Jacob's turn to pick the movie, and after picking LEGION a few years back, this year he chose another movie that features both Doug Jones and Charles Dutton: MIMIC from director Guillermo Del Toro! We should be back with another episode in late July, but we hope you enjoy our fifth annual Doug Jones episode. If you like what you hear, feel free to leave us a review wherever you get your pods. If you'd like to follow us on social media, you can visit our Linktree page (linked below) but we've also listed some of our social media handles: Linktree: linktr.ee/scarystuff Official site: scarystuffpodcast.com Twitter: @scarystuffpod Instagram: @scarystuffpodcast Letterboxd: @scarystuffpod Incredibly Niche Merch: teepublic.com/user/scary-stuff-podcast You can find a list of all the previous movies we've reviewed and their corresponding episodes (via the "Read Notes" option) here: https://letterboxd.com/scarystuffpod/list/all-reviews-scary-stuff-podcast/ And as always, thanks so much for listening!

In this episode of the Northwestern Undergraduate Law Journal Speaker Series, I interview Ish Alsheik, an ‘05 graduate of Northwestern's Pritzker School of Law. Ish discusses his educational journey starting from his undergraduate years at Georgetown University, his volunteer work in Chicago, his stint in politics, and his legal career path through various firms, highlighting his time at Schiff Hardin and Jones Day. He also touches on his positive experiences at Pritzker, dealing with challenges as a person of color, and the importance of effective communication in legal practice. The discussion concludes with advice for aspiring lawyers, emphasizing the value of exploration, travel, and broadening one's perspectives.

This Day in Legal History: First Union FormedOn May 1, 1794, a pivotal development in labor rights history occurred in Philadelphia with the formation of the Federal Society of Journeymen Cordwainers. This organization, consisting of skilled shoemakers, marks the establishment of the first trade union in the United States. The union was created as a response to the increasingly difficult economic conditions that tradesmen faced, including low wages and long working hours.The Cordwainers, recognizing the strength in numbers, aimed to leverage their collective bargaining power to negotiate better wages and working conditions. This was a significant step forward in the labor movement, as it introduced the concept of organized labor in America. The formation of this union was not just about improving pay; it was also about dignifying the labor force and providing workers a platform to voice their concerns.Philadelphia, being a hub of commerce and trade in the late 18th century, provided the perfect setting for such an organization. The city's workshops and bustling markets meant that there was a significant demand for skilled labor, which the Cordwainers could supply. However, with industrialization beginning to take root, these skilled workers found themselves under threat from cheaper, mass-produced goods.The Federal Society of Journeymen Cordwainers set a precedent that would be followed by other trades across the country. Their actions led to the establishment of similar societies and unions, which eventually contributed to the broader national labor movement. The Cordwainers themselves faced legal challenges, particularly in 1806, when they were involved in a landmark legal case concerning the rights of workers to organize, known as Commonwealth v. Pullis. In this case, the court ruled against the union, marking one of the first legal battles over the legitimacy of trade union activities in the United States.Despite the legal setbacks, the resilience and pioneering spirit of the Federal Society of Journeymen Cordwainers inspired subsequent generations of workers to fight for their rights. Their legacy is a testament to the enduring struggle for fair labor practices and workers' rights. This day in legal history not only marks the formation of America's first trade union but also celebrates the long journey towards justice and equity in the workplace.The US Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) recently proposed a rule that would require pharmaceutical companies to submit unredacted settlement agreements involving patent challenges to a new repository. This rule is aimed to assist the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) in detecting antitrust violations. The proposal arose from concerns that these settlements, often reached in administrative tribunals like the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), could be used to delay cheaper biosimilar drugs from entering the market.Evan Diamond, special counsel, noted that the PTO has not clearly defined "good cause" for accessing these agreements, which might increase third-party access and create confidentiality concerns. The fear is that the database could enable federal agencies to easily assess the frequency of potentially anticompetitive pay-for-delay settlements—a practice scrutinized under the Supreme Court's 2013 decision in FTC v. Actavis, which ruled such deals could be illegal.The proposal aligns with an executive order from President Joe Biden encouraging interagency cooperation to prevent practices that unjustifiably delay generic and biosimilar competition. This move has heightened the pharmaceutical industry's fears of increased antitrust enforcement, particularly as the FTC has been actively challenging questionable patent listings that could hinder the approval of generic drugs.Agencies like the FTC and DOJ already have certain reporting requirements under the Medicare Modernization Act for pharmaceutical companies, but the PTO's rule could capture additional agreements that do not meet existing criteria. This has sparked debate over the necessity and potential overlap of the new rule.The pharmaceutical industry, represented by major lobbyist groups like Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America and the Biotechnology Innovation Organization, has expressed strong opposition, citing concerns over the scope of PTO's authority and the ambiguity around the "good cause" criterion.This development highlights a broader regulatory push against anti-competitive practices not only in pharmaceuticals but also in other sectors like technology, where companies like Apple and Google are frequently involved in patent litigation.In summary, the PTO's proposed rule could significantly impact how pharmaceutical settlements are handled, potentially exposing companies to greater antitrust scrutiny. This measure reflects a governmental shift towards stricter oversight of patent practices to foster competition and reduce drug prices.Drug Makers Exposed to Antitrust Probes if Patent Cache AdoptedThis term, Jones Day had the highest number of attorneys—five in total—arguing cases at the U.S. Supreme Court, more than any other firm. Among them, John Gore and C. Kevin Marshall presented for the first time at the high court. Other experienced attorneys like former U.S. Solicitor General Noel Francisco, and partners Hashim Mooppan and Traci Lovitt also argued cases, contributing to the firm's visibility.In comparison, other leading law firms such as Gibson Dunn, Hogan Lovells, and Williams & Connolly had slightly fewer representatives. Gibson Dunn introduced three new attorneys to the Supreme Court lectern, including Theane Evangelis, D. Nick Harper, and Eugene Scalia, who is a son of the late Justice Antonin Scalia. Hogan Lovells' Jessica Ellsworth argued for the first time, including in a significant case regarding the abortion drug mifepristone. Williams & Connolly had Lisa Blatt argue all four of their cases, marking her 50th Supreme Court appearance.Overall, the season saw a mix of seasoned veterans and newcomers. Of the total 152 arguments made, over half were by attorneys who had appeared at least five times before, while a quarter were by first-time arguers. This highlights both the depth of experience and the ongoing introduction of new talent in the legal field's highest echelons.Jones Day Leads in Supreme Court Arguments With New FacesJohnson & Johnson (J&J) is currently seeking approval for an $11 billion settlement to resolve ongoing litigation concerning its talc-based baby powder, which has been alleged to cause ovarian cancer. This amount is a significant increase from a previous offer of $8.9 billion. J&J's strategy involves a third attempt at a bankruptcy filing, specifically a pre-packaged bankruptcy, which allows for faster processing if they secure enough creditor support—in this case, needing the approval of 75% of the talc plaintiffs.The company proposes to pay $6.48 billion over 25 years to settle ovarian cancer claims, but it has not specified how funds will be divided between existing and future claims. Additionally, J&J has nearly settled all claims regarding mesothelioma believed to be caused by asbestos in the powder. This settlement approach follows multiple failed attempts to use Chapter 11 to manage these lawsuits, which now number almost 60,000.These lawsuits have been a significant factor depressing J&J's stock price, according to analysts. Despite the legal challenges, J&J maintains that its talc products do not cause cancer and asserts that it has marketed its baby powder responsibly for over a century. A recent verdict, however, led to a $45 million payout to a family, implicating J&J and its spinoff Kenvue in the ongoing litigation.The company's persistence in seeking a bankruptcy-based settlement reflects its strategic approach to managing a complex legal challenge that impacts thousands of plaintiffs and could potentially set a precedent in how large corporations handle mass tort liabilities through bankruptcy court.J&J Seeks Backing for $11 Billion Baby Powder Cancer SettlementIn President Joe Biden's Fiscal Year 2025 Budget Proposal, a notable change is the suggestion to tax unrealized gains—value increases in assets not yet converted into cash through a sale. This marks a significant shift from traditional tax frameworks, which typically avoid taxing unrealized gains due to their complexity, potential liquidity issues, and difficulties in implementation.The rationale behind this proposal is to ensure tax fairness by capturing increases in wealth that currently escape taxation. For example, if a billionaire's stock appreciates significantly without being sold, they realize no taxable gain. However, if they borrow against these increased values, they effectively use this appreciation as a means to generate wealth without incurring tax liabilities. This situation presents a loophole where wealth can grow and be leveraged without contributing to the tax base.The FY2025 budget aims to address these disparities by proposing a tax on unrealized gains for very high-net-worth individuals and entities that have not been subject to a tax event in the last 90 years. This approach seeks to broaden the tax base without raising rates, aiming to increase tax revenue from the wealthy without additional burdens on middle and lower-income individuals.This policy shift acknowledges the need to adapt tax strategies to a changing economic environment where traditional taxation methods no longer capture all forms of wealth accumulation. The proposal suggests that a more equitable tax system requires taxing wealth as it grows, even if it is not realized through a sale. By proposing to tax unrealized gains, the administration intends to correct imbalances allowing substantial wealth to accumulate tax-free, signaling a significant potential change in how wealth is taxed in the U.S.Unrealized Gain Tax—A Coming Sea Change in FY2025 Budget Proposal? Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Steve and Catherine got to ask a former SEC regional director two big questions: Just how much should a CEO know about operations? What's up with the SEC climate disclosure rule now that it's stayed? David Peavler of Jones Day shares his perspective and blows their minds! Listen now.

In today's episode, I discuss lateral growth, integration, and profitability strategies with Kristina Lambright, Associate Director of Lateral Recruiting at Jones Day.  Kristina spent a decade as a litigator before moving into a role developing and leading the pricing and legal project management (LPM) efforts at three AmLaw 50 firms, focusing on revenue growth and profitability. For the past five years, Kristina has overseen lateral partner hiring and integration.   At a glance: 01:20 - Kristina's transition from practicing litigator to taking on business roles within law firms 02:44 - Kristina's career journey, highlighting the shift from practicing law to focusing on pricing and LPM to enhance law firm profitability and client engagement 05:42 - The importance of integrating pricing strategies with lateral partner hiring to ensure law firm growth and operational support 07:28 - Exploring the strategic roles of lateral recruiting and practice management in law firms, emphasizing profitability and client service alignment 10:23 - Challenges and strategies in aligning firm-wide priorities, particularly in managing and integrating lateral hires and practice growth 12:07 - Nuances of internal versus external recruiting processes and their impact on law firm dynamics and strategic hiring - what to expect when working with an internal v. external recruiter 14:41 - How law firms approach lateral hiring, including looking at office needs as well as practice needs 17:03 - The importance of a firm's strategic plan for lateral moves and setting clear priorities within the firm to enhance targeted growth 19:41 - How clarifying a firm's strategic priorities can impact successful lateral integration and practice development How to reach Kristina Lambright:  LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/kristina-lambright-02a85718 Interested in doing 1-2-1 coaching with Laura Terrell? Or learning more about her work coaching and consulting? - here are ways to reach out to her: www.lauraterrell.com  laura@lauraterrell.com   LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/lauralterrell/  Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lauraterrellcoaching/  Show notes: https://www.lauraterrell.com/podcast  

This Day in Legal History: Harlan Fiske Stone DiesOn April 22, 1946, the United States Supreme Court lost one of its distinguished jurists, Chief Justice Harlan Fiske Stone, who died unexpectedly at the age of 73 while still serving on the bench. Appointed as Chief Justice in 1941 by President Franklin D. Roosevelt, Stone had originally been nominated to the Court as an Associate Justice in 1925 by President Calvin Coolidge. His tenure as Chief Justice was marked by a strong commitment to the principles of judicial restraint and a profound respect for the Constitution.Stone's legal philosophy was notably pragmatic and centered on a belief in judicial deference to the decisions of Congress and the executive, except in clear cases of constitutional violation. This approach was reflective of his broader views on the role of the judiciary in American democracy, emphasizing that courts should not interfere with policy decisions unless absolutely necessary. Under his leadership, the Court navigated through complex issues including war-time rights, separation of powers, and economic regulation.Chief Justice Stone is particularly remembered for his opinion in the landmark case of United States v. Darby in 1941, which upheld the Fair Labor Standards Act and marked a departure from the Court's earlier resistance to extensive federal regulation of the economy. This decision demonstrated his nuanced understanding of the balance between state and federal powers and his support for broader legislative authority in economic matters.During his time as Chief Justice, Stone also oversaw the filling of all seats on the Court, shaping its composition and, indirectly, its jurisprudence. He was instrumental in fostering a collegial atmosphere among the justices, despite the ideological differences that often characterized the Court's deliberations.Stone's sudden death, from a cerebral hemorrhage suffered during a public session of the Court, marked a dramatic close to a career deeply embedded in the fabric of American legal history. His death underscored his dedication to his role, having served until his very last moments. His legacy is reflected in the decisions and directions the Court took under his stewardship, especially in the affirmation of federal power and the protection of civil liberties.Harlan Fiske Stone's era as Chief Justice was a pivotal period in the Supreme Court's history, reflecting a transition in American jurisprudence from strict constitutional literalism to a more flexible, interpretative approach that considered the realities of a changing society. His leadership helped steer the Court through the turbulence of the Great Depression, World War II, and the beginning of the Cold War, leaving a lasting impact on the judicial landscape of America.The U.S. Supreme Court is revisiting the issue of homelessness for the first time in 40 years, taking up the case of Grants Pass v. Johnson. This case emerges from a small city in Oregon, known for its natural beauty, where local ordinances impose fines on individuals sleeping in public with bedding, a matter now being evaluated under the Eighth Amendment's clause against cruel and unusual punishment. Grants Pass, despite its growth and beauty, lacks permanent public shelters, leading homeless advocates to support the removal of such punitive measures due to the absence of housing alternatives.The city argues that such issues should remain under local and state jurisdiction, allowing for more creative, localized solutions. Meanwhile, opposing voices, including various scholars and homelessness advocates, argue that these laws unfairly penalize the involuntarily homeless and potentially shift focus from penalization to more constructive solutions like increasing housing availability. This case could set a significant legal precedent affecting how municipalities nationwide address homelessness.The Ninth Circuit Court previously struck down the Grants Pass ordinances, siding with those who argued that without sufficient shelter space, individuals have no choice but to sleep outside, thus making the city's fines for public sleeping inherently unjust. The Supreme Court's prior engagement with homelessness was decades ago, focusing more on protest rights than the broader implications of homelessness laws.With homelessness rates at a record high across the U.S., the outcome of this case could redefine the legal landscape surrounding how cities manage their homeless populations. It reflects a critical juncture where the judiciary may redefine the boundaries of local governance in dealing with social crises, especially when it comes to balancing punitive measures with human rights considerations.Supreme Court Tackles Homelessness for First Time in DecadesTop law firms are increasingly bypassing traditional on-campus recruiting events, opting to engage directly with potential recruits earlier in their academic careers. This shift, driven by the desire to secure top talent before competitors, involves firms offering positions to law students before they complete their first year, significantly ahead of the usual on-campus interviews (OCI) controlled by law schools and the National Association for Law Placement (NALP). As a result, firms like Morrison Foerster indicate that direct hires might comprise about half of their new class, as waiting for OCIs might cause them to miss out on desirable candidates.This trend has led to a snowball effect with other major firms like Weil Gotshal & Manges and Jones Day opening their applications for summer programs well before traditional timelines, sometimes as early as mid-April. This causes them to make hiring decisions based on a smaller academic record, compressing the timeline for law students to decide their career paths. Moreover, the pandemic has facilitated a shift towards virtual interviews, further speeding up the recruitment process and allowing more firm partners to participate without the logistical challenges of travel.However, this compressed timeline poses challenges both for students, who have less time to understand their legal careers fully, and for firms, which must ensure they are still hiring candidates who will succeed in the long term. To adapt, some firms, like Morrison Foerster, are considering incorporating new assessments or writing exercises into their interview processes.Law schools are also adjusting to this new landscape by moving their OCI sessions earlier, as seen at Howard University and other top schools like Yale and Stanford. This aligns more closely with the timing of firm applications, putting additional pressure on students to make quick decisions, often with incomplete information from their first year of studies.The changes in recruiting practices reflect a broader move towards a more aggressive, market-driven approach to hiring, emphasizing efficiency and early engagement with potential hires. This evolution in the legal recruitment field underscores the competitive nature of hiring for prestigious law firms and the significant impact these early decisions can have on the careers of young lawyers.Big Law Skips Ahead of On-Campus Recruiting in Race for TalentThe criminal trial of former U.S. President Donald Trump has commenced in New York, marking the first-ever trial of a former president. Trump faces 34 counts of falsifying business records, related to a $130,000 payment made to porn star Stormy Daniels by his former lawyer, Michael Cohen. This payment, intended to ensure Daniels' silence about an alleged sexual encounter with Trump, is accused of misleading voters during the critical final stages of the 2016 presidential campaign. Trump has denied the allegations, pleading not guilty to all charges.Prosecutors are presenting this case as part of a larger "catch and kill" strategy, where Trump, along with Cohen and David Pecker, former CEO of American Media, aimed to suppress damaging stories prior to the 2016 election. This strategy reportedly included payments to Daniels and former Playboy model Karen McDougal, both intended to prevent stories about Trump's extramarital affairs from surfacing. American Media, under Pecker's leadership, admitted to these practices as part of a non-prosecution agreement.The trial will feature testimony from Pecker and at least 20 other witnesses, with proceedings expected to last six to eight weeks. Cohen, a central figure in the case, may face credibility challenges due to his own legal history. Trump's defense argues that the payments were personal matters and not campaign-related expenditures.The legal battle unfolds as Trump remains a significant figure in American politics, actively campaigning for a return to the presidency in a tight race against Joe Biden. Despite the charges, Trump's political support among Republicans has surged. The trial's outcome could influence the broader political landscape, especially as Trump also faces other criminal charges related to different aspects of his political and post-presidential activities.Trump hush-money trial kicks off with opening statements in New York | ReutersTikTok has voiced concerns about a bill passed by the U.S. House of Representatives that could lead to a ban of the app if its Chinese owner, ByteDance, does not divest its stake within a specified timeframe. The bill, which saw a significant majority approval in the House, is now headed to the Senate and has the support of President Joe Biden. U.S. officials, including members from both major political parties and the Biden administration, argue that TikTok poses a national security risk due to potential data sharing with the Chinese government.TikTok, however, has refuted claims that it has shared or would share U.S. user data and insists that the bill infringes on the free speech rights of its 170 million American users. The company has likened the move to censorship, echoing its response to a previous state-level ban in Montana. Additionally, the American Civil Liberties Union and other free speech advocates have criticized the bill, suggesting it does not effectively counter the broader issues of data privacy and foreign disinformation efforts.Senator Mark Warner expressed concerns on national television about TikTok being used as a propaganda tool by the Chinese government, while others argue for the necessity of more robust data privacy legislation rather than a ban. Representative Ro Khanna mentioned that a ban might not hold up under legal scrutiny due to constitutional free speech protections. Amidst these debates, the bill aims to accelerate the divestiture process by setting a firmer deadline for ByteDance, underlining the ongoing geopolitical tensions surrounding technology and data security between the U.S. and China.TikTok says US House bill that could ban app would 'trample' free speech | Reuters Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: Beatles Sign 10 Year Partnership AgreementOn this day in legal history, April 19, 1967, The Beatles, comprising John Lennon, Paul McCartney, George Harrison, and Ringo Starr, entered into a significant legal agreement that aimed to bind them together as a group for another decade. The partnership deed they signed not only reflected their intent to continue collaborating but also legally formalized the business side of their operations amid their skyrocketing fame.However, the unity that this agreement sought to solidify began to unravel just a few years later. Despite their intentions in 1967, The Beatles faced increasing personal and creative differences which led to their disbandment in 1970, a full seven years short of the agreement's term. The disintegration of their partnership led to one of the most famous legal cases in music history.Paul McCartney took the lead in legally challenging the partnership. In December 1970, he filed a suit against the other members to dissolve The Beatles' contractual partnership. McCartney's move was a response to managerial disputes, particularly concerning Allen Klein, whom John, George, and Ringo favored to manage their business affairs, a decision Paul vehemently opposed.The legal battle that ensued was fraught with emotional and financial tension, highlighting the complexities of music rights, personal relationships, and business interests intertwined within the band. McCartney sought the appointment of a receiver to manage the group's finances, effectively protecting his earnings from decisions made by Klein, whom he distrusted.The court ultimately ruled in McCartney's favor in 1971, leading to the official legal dissolution of The Beatles' partnership. This case not only marked the end of one of the most successful musical collaborations in history but also set a precedent in how legal disputes within bands were viewed and handled in the future.The dissolution of The Beatles not only reshaped their personal and professional lives but also impacted the music industry, emphasizing the importance of legal agreements in artistic collaborations. While their music continues to influence generations, the legal battles they endured serve as a cautionary tale about the potential complexities of combining creative endeavors with business interests.Troutman Pepper Hamilton Sanders and Locke Lord, two prominent law firms, are currently in discussions about a potential merger that would significantly elevate their market position. If successful, the merger would create a powerhouse legal firm with over 1,600 lawyers and revenues surpassing $1.5 billion, positioning it among the top 30 largest firms by revenue. This strategic alignment is driven by complementary strengths in corporate, litigation, and real estate practices, with both firms having a robust presence in these areas.The merger would also expand Troutman Pepper's geographic footprint into Texas, a key market due to its burgeoning energy sector, where Locke Lord already has established offices in Houston, Dallas, and Austin. This move reflects a broader trend of consolidation within the legal industry, where smaller firms merge to compete more effectively against larger rivals, enhancing their scope, talent pool, and profitability.This discussion is part of an ongoing wave of mergers in the legal sector, highlighting a competitive push among firms outside the Am Law 200 to scale up operations and extend their market influence. Both firms have a history of mergers, with Troutman Pepper emerging from a 2020 merger and Locke Lord from several mergers, the most recent in 2015. These consolidations have historically aided in growth and market presence, as seen in their revenue and lawyer count increases over the years. The potential merger aims to leverage these synergies to create a more formidable competitor in the legal market.Troutman Pepper, Locke Lord Discuss a New $1.5 Billion Firm (2)The legal battle between Jones Day and Soverain Software, which began over two decades ago, continues to unravel in the courts. Initially, Jones Day helped Soverain secure a $40 million settlement from Amazon in a patent infringement suit in 2005. However, tensions arose when Soverain only paid Jones Day $22 million of the fees before their relationship deteriorated in 2010 during a lawsuit against Newegg, where Soverain won significantly less than the $34 million it sought.The dispute escalated when Jones Day claimed that Soverain had not paid all the fees owed, leading to a $1.5 million arbitration award in favor of Jones Day in 2015. Jones Day accuses Soverain of creating a complex scheme to avoid payment, including fraudulent transfers of funds involving Soverain's founder and former chief legal officer.Soverain, known for its aggressive patent litigation over online shopping cart technology, faced a major setback when key patents were invalidated in 2013, diminishing its revenue potential. Despite this, Jones Day alleges that Soverain and its executives engaged in financial maneuvers to siphon funds, complicating the firm's efforts to collect its fees.Currently, the legal wrangling involves attempts by Jones Day to enforce the arbitration award, while Soverain challenges the validity of the claim, arguing it was filed too late. The saga highlights ongoing issues in the legal industry related to client relationships, fee disputes, and the challenges of enforcing legal payments.Jones Day's Messy Split From Client Fuels Long-Running Fee FightIn a significant legal development, lawyers have completed the selection of 12 jurors for the landmark criminal trial of former U.S. President Donald Trump in New York. This trial, notable for being the first in which a former president stands as a defendant, involves allegations that Trump falsified business records to conceal a hush-money payment to porn star Stormy Daniels ahead of the 2016 election. The selection process was marked by challenges, including the dismissal of potential jurors who felt they could not remain impartial, reflecting Trump's polarizing influence.The trial has already seen its share of drama, with the early dismissal of jurors—one due to intimidation concerns after her personal information was inadvertently revealed, and another for failing to disclose previous legal issues. These incidents underscore the heightened tensions surrounding the trial. The jury's task is complicated by the intense public and media scrutiny, as well as Trump's frequent critiques of the legal process and those involved, which has led to concerns about juror safety and the integrity of the trial process.Justice Juan Merchan, overseeing the trial, has implemented measures to protect jurors' anonymity and limit media coverage of certain details to prevent potential harassment. As the trial moves forward, with opening statements expected soon, the world watches closely. This case not only holds significant legal ramifications for Trump, who faces multiple criminal cases, but also carries substantial political implications, especially with Trump's ongoing presidential campaign. The outcome could influence public perception and the political landscape significantly.Lawyers select 12 jurors to serve in Trump hush-money case | ReutersMore than one-third of U.S. law school deans have expressed opposition to a new proposal by the American Bar Association (ABA) aimed at enforcing greater uniformity across law school courses. The proposal has sparked concerns about the ABA's increasing control over academic freedom and the curriculum design within law schools. Seventy-six deans from ABA-accredited schools, including prominent institutions like New York University, Georgetown, and the University of Michigan, have publicly criticized the initiative.Proponents of the proposal argue that establishing more uniform required classes and specific learning goals for each course would ensure that students possess a consistent foundational knowledge, which would support their overall education and benefit faculty teaching advanced courses. This group includes influential figures such as former ABA legal education administrator Barry Currier and several law professors actively involved in student outcomes and assessment.The ABA has outlined that the revised standards would clarify expectations and requirements, moving away from the current broad standards. This adjustment is intended to help law schools more clearly understand and meet accreditation requirements, with the proposal necessitating that law schools regularly review and revise their academic programs every five years.Critics, however, argue that the proposal infringes on the academic freedom of professors and imposes significant administrative burdens on schools. They contend that it unnecessarily dictates specific learning outcomes and course alignments that could stifle educational innovation and diversity in teaching methods.The proposed changes also include new requirements for first-year classes, such as early assessments to provide students with feedback before final exams and mandated academic support for students who underperform. With the comment period now closed, the ABA's legal education council is expected to consider the feedback and make a decision on the proposal at its next meeting on May 17. The ongoing debate highlights a broader tension between regulatory oversight and academic independence in legal education.Law deans balk at course uniformity proposed by American Bar Association | ReutersThis week's closing theme is by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart.Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, born on January 27, 1756, in Salzburg, Austria, is one of the most prolific and influential composers of the Classical era. His father, Leopold Mozart, a noted violinist and composer in his own right, was instrumental in nurturing his son's prodigious talent. Mozart showed early signs of genius, mastering keyboard and violin by the age of five and composing by the age of five and a half. His extensive tours of Europe as a child wunderkind brought him into contact with a wide array of musical styles and influential composers, which shaped his own unique compositional voice.Mozart's works encompass all genres of his time, including symphonies, operas, solo concertos, chamber music, and choral music, showcasing his remarkable versatility and creativity. His music is celebrated for its melodic beauty, formal elegance, and rich harmonic and instrumental textures. Despite his profound musical output, Mozart's life was marked by financial instability and he died prematurely at the age of 35 on December 5, 1791, in Vienna, leaving behind an enduring legacy.One of Mozart's lighter, yet deeply admired works is the "Serenade in G Major," also known as "Eine kleine Nachtmusik" (A Little Night Music). Composed in 1787, the same year as his opera "Don Giovanni," this piece exemplifies Mozart's ability to infuse charm and sophistication into his compositions. The second movement, "Romance," is particularly notable for its lyrical and tender qualities. It begins with a gentle, soothing melody that exudes calmness and reflective poise, then transitions into a minor mode that adds a touch of drama before returning to the tranquil themes of the opening. This movement, like the rest of the serenade, is a wonderful example of Mozart's genius in creating music that is both accessible and complex, embodying the elegance and grace of the Classical style. Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Jurisdictions are requiring large corporations and other entities to report on the environmental risks they face and how their business operations impact the climate. In the second in a series of JONES DAY TALKS® podcasts regarding significant climate disclosure rules, our panel discusses the SEC's rules announced in early March, the European Union's Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), and the State of California's Climate Corporate Data Accountability Act and Climate-Related Financial Risk Act. Read the full transcript here.

This Day in Legal History: Sirhan Sirhan ConvictedOn this day in legal history, April 17, 1969, Sirhan Sirhan was convicted of one of the most high-profile crimes of the 20th century—the assassination of Senator Robert F. Kennedy. Kennedy, a leading candidate for the Democratic nomination for President of the United States, was shot on June 5, 1968, at the Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles, shortly after delivering his victory speech in the California primary elections. Sirhan, a 24-year-old Palestinian immigrant, was apprehended at the scene.The trial of Sirhan was a watershed moment in American legal and political history. It highlighted the growing tensions in the United States and the world over issues like the Vietnam War and the Middle East conflict. Sirhan's defense team attempted to argue diminished capacity, claiming that Sirhan was mentally unstable at the time of the shooting. They presented evidence suggesting that Sirhan was psychologically unable to cope with his intense feelings of anger and alienation, stemming primarily from his strong objections to Kennedy's pro-Israeli views.Despite these arguments, the jury found Sirhan guilty of first-degree murder, and he was sentenced to death. However, his sentence would not be carried out. In 1972, the Supreme Court of California effectively overturned the death penalty in the state, ruling it unconstitutional, which automatically commuted the death sentences of all death row inmates, including Sirhan, to life imprisonment.Sirhan's case continued to evoke debates about political violence, justice, and capital punishment. The commutation of his death sentence to life imprisonment came during a period of intense scrutiny and reevaluation of the death penalty in the United States, reflecting broader societal shifts. His continued imprisonment has been punctuated by numerous parole hearings, during which the severity of his crime is re-examined alongside his behavior and reform while in custody.Sirhan Sirhan's conviction and subsequent legal journey through the penal system serve as a grim reminder of the turbulent times during the late 1960s in the United States and represent a significant chapter in the nation's legal history. The assassination and the trial that followed had a lasting impact on American legal practices and the political landscape, highlighting the intersection of mental health issues and the criminal justice system.A recent legal battle ended with a $101 million jury verdict against Walmart Inc. in favor of London Luxury, a textile vendor. The verdict was reached in Arkansas, close to Walmart's headquarters, concerning a breached contract for over $500 million in personal protective equipment during the COVID-19 pandemic. The case was represented by the Manhattan litigation boutique Holwell Shuster & Goldberg (HSG), which took over after London Luxury parted ways with two larger law firms. This lawsuit received financial backing from Bench Walk Advisors, who invested over $5.1 million in the case among other suits.Walmart, represented by Jones Day and at least two other firms, has expressed disagreement with the jury's decision and is considering an appeal. The spokesperson from Walmart claimed that the verdict was not supported by evidence and emphasized the company's commitment to fair business practices.The litigation was originally filed in Westchester, New York, early 2022 but was moved to federal court in Fayetteville, Arkansas. The decision followed a 10-day jury trial. HSG, known for handling significant cases on contingency and alternative fee arrangements, benefitted from external funding which is becoming a common strategy among plaintiff-side lawyers to manage litigation costs.Litigation finance, a growing $15.2 billion industry, involves investors funding lawsuits in exchange for a portion of any financial awards. Bench Walk's investment in the Walmart case was aimed at covering trial costs, highlighting the evolving dynamics and risks associated with such financial strategies in litigation.Walmart's $101 Million Loss Is Win for Firm, Funder Behind SuitUS Senator Bob Menendez is set to present a defense strategy in his bribery trial that involves distancing himself from actions potentially taken by his wife, Nadine Menendez, according to newly unsealed court documents. The couple is accused of accepting various bribes, including cash, gold bars, and a car, in exchange for facilitating business and governmental interests. The documents reveal that Senator Menendez might testify that he was unaware of the true nature of the gifts, suggesting that his wife withheld information from him which led him to believe nothing unlawful was occurring.This defense strategy emerged during a legal request for separate trials for the senator and his wife, indicating a significant shift from their previously united front. The judge granted this request after Nadine Menendez needed to undergo surgery, leading to separate trial dates for the senator and his wife. The trial for Senator Menendez and two businessmen is set for May 6, while Nadine Menendez's trial is scheduled for July 8.The case also involves allegations that Senator Menendez acted as a foreign agent for Egypt, further complicating the charges against him. The decision to potentially expose confidential marital communications during the trial highlights the complex dynamics of the legal strategy and the personal stakes involved. The Menendez legal team's move to request separate trials underscores the challenges of defending a joint case while maintaining marital privileges and the strategic legal positioning that may influence the outcomes of their respective trials.Bob Menendez Poised to Blame His Wife in Bribery Case DefenseMichael Cohen, former attorney and fixer for Donald Trump, has shifted from a loyal supporter to a key witness in the first criminal trial of a U.S. president. The trial, which began recently in New York, revolves around allegations that Trump concealed payments made to the porn star Stormy Daniels to maintain her silence about a past sexual encounter. Cohen, who facilitated a $130,000 payment to Daniels prior to the 2016 election, claims Trump directed these actions. Trump has pleaded not guilty to the charges, dismissing the allegations and labeling Cohen a "serial liar."This is not Cohen's first testimony against Trump; he has previously testified in a civil fraud trial concerning the Trump Organization's asset valuations. In that trial, Cohen admitted to manipulating property values on Trump's directive, which resulted in Trump being ordered to pay $454 million in penalties and interest. Furthermore, Cohen's history includes a three-year prison sentence for this payment and other offenses, including tax fraud and lying under oath about the Trump Organization's Russian business dealings.Cohen's role in Trump's legal saga underscores a dramatic transformation from a close presidential confidant to an outspoken critic, a change catalyzed by federal investigations into his activities. Despite his controversial past, including admitting to lying during legal proceedings, Cohen's insights are central to the prosecution's case. His involvement illustrates the complex dynamics and potential risks in relying on testimony from figures with compromised credibility. The outcome of this trial could have significant legal and political ramifications, reflecting Cohen's intricate and troubled relationship with the former president.Trump's ex-fixer Michael Cohen to be key witness in hush money criminal trial | ReutersMy column this week discusses the importance and implications of introducing an open-source tax credit for software developers. Open-source software, valued at $8.8 trillion, is fundamental to both private and governmental technology systems. These projects often start as hobbyist pursuits by individual developers and require long-term maintenance from a broader community, which currently lacks sufficient incentives. The proposed tax credit would allow developers to deduct expenses related to their voluntary contributions to open-source projects, including a portion of the time they dedicate, aiming to motivate broader participation and enhance project oversight.The idea of such a tax credit is not new, having been previously proposed at the state level. However, economic reliance on open-source software has only increased, highlighted by incidents like the XZ security breach, which underscore the risks of exploiting these resources without adequate compensation to the contributors. The proposed tax credit, potentially worth up to $2,000, would recognize the contributions of developers by helping to offset their financial costs, thus encouraging more significant investment in the security and enhancement of open-source projects.The broader impact of the tax credit includes not only financial benefits for developers but also societal acknowledgment of the value of their contributions, akin to charitable efforts in other professional fields. This recognition could help alleviate financial barriers and align developers' interests with wider societal benefits, promoting a more robust and secure open-source software ecosystem.However, implementing such a credit faces challenges, particularly in quantifying individual contributions and valuing developers' labor. In the column I suggest using the mean hourly wage for software developers as a baseline for these calculations and stresses the importance of designing this policy with inputs from various stakeholders to mitigate risks like fraud.Modern tools like GitHub and GitLab provide traceable records of contributions, making it feasible to verify and quantify individual efforts within open-source projects. This proposed tax credit aims to correct a significant oversight in our technological infrastructure, incentivizing valuable contributions that enhance the security and viability of open-source software in an increasingly digital world.Open-Source Tax Credit Would Better Compensate Tech Developers Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

On Friday, March 15, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit granted an administrative stay of the SEC's final Climate Disclosure Rules, adopted just over a week earlier. All of the challenges to the Rules filed in various courts will be coordinated for review before one court. As written, the Rules will require publicly traded corporations to make significant, new climate-related disclosures. In the first of a series of JONES DAY TALKS® programs examining the new Rules and related topics, Amy Pandit and Olga Gidalevitz discuss key implementation considerations for affected companies. Read the full transcript here.

Corporate Venture Capital, or CVC, continues to play a major role in investment and deal activity across numerous growth industries. Jones Day partners Tim Curry and Taylor Stevens discuss who's investing, the opportunities they're targeting, and the special factors to consider in a corporate venture investment. Read the full transcript here.

Joshua B. Sterling is a Partner at Jones Day where he represents financial services, energy, fintech, agriculture and other companies in matters before the CFTC, the SEC, and other financial regulators. A former senior regulator, Josh was previously the Director of the CFTC's Market Participants Division. In that role, he oversaw the 3,300 financial firms worldwide registered with the CFTC to participate in the global derivatives markets.  Show highlights: [1:00] Josh's introduction to Bitcoin [5:00] BitMEX case [11:00] 2008 financial crisis [16:00] Finance and Web3 [20:00] Role of CFTC in crypto [25:00] Role of the SEC [29:00] How to improve the SEC's results & much more. We also discuss the book The Price of Time: The Real Story of Interest. Disclaimer: Jacob Robinson and his guests are not your lawyer. Nothing herein or mentioned on the Law of Code podcast should be construed as legal advice. The material published is intended for informational, educational, and entertainment purposes only. Please seek the advice of counsel, and do not apply any of the generalized material to your individual facts or circumstances without speaking to an attorney.

  Do you have imposter syndrome?  And you're wondering if it'll ever go away?  Rasha shares: - Why she believes imposter syndrome is not just internal doubt, but part of external factors like microaggressions. - How she found a sense of belonging in Big Law. - How to balance being a working mom and a leader at the workplace during the pandemic.  - Why mentors and sponsors can make a huge difference in your career.  - Why you shouldn't opt out of positions of power. Connect with Rasha at https://www.linkedin.com/in/rashagergesshields.  Rasha would like our listeners to know that the views expressed in this podcast are her own and not that of any referenced organizations. Follow Samorn on LinkedIn at https://www.linkedin.com/in/samornselim/. Get a copy of Samorn's book, “Belonging: Self Love Lessons From A Workaholic Depressed Insomniac Lawyer” at https://tinyurl.com/swpc578c. Get weekly career tips by signing up for our advice column at www.careerunicorns.com.  

In this Movers, Shakers, and Rainmakers episode, David Lat and Zach Sandberg engage in an insightful discussion with Gene Phillips, founder of Lexangle, a leading legal-consulting firm. Gene describes his interesting journey from mathematics to finance to litigation finance to legal consulting. The conversation then delves into the rise of litigation boutiques, current trends in litigation finance, and expert advice on launching and growing law firms. For our Moves of the Week, we spotlight Jones Day's impressive hire of eight Supreme Court clerks and Paul Weiss's exploration of a possible Houston office, which would strengthen its presence in the energy sector. Join us for this fascinating episode, and don't forget to rate, review, subscribe, and tell a friend!

As business and investment activity in Asia surge, multinational corporations operating in the region face continually evolving and challenging compliance obligations and risks. Jones Day lawyers Lillian He, Hiromitsu Miyakwa, Zac Sharpe, and Simon M. Yu, all with broad experience advising corporate clients in Asia, discuss the current compliance and regulatory landscape, key enforcement agencies, and the attention in the region to ESG, data privacy and cybersecurity, anti-corruption, and sanctions. Read the full transcript here.

A federal district court held in Thaler v. Perlmutter that an AI-generated image, "A Recent Entrance to Paradise," cannot be copyrighted due to the lack of sufficient human contribution to its creation. Jones Day partners Emily Tait and Carl Kukkonen talk about the implications of the decision, the questions that remain, third-party complications, and what GenAI users need to know. Read the full transcript here.

Do you hate hidden hotel, housing, airline, ticketing, banking, and other corporate fees? Do you want Congress to do something about them? In this episode, learn about the wide range of unreasonable fees being reported to Congress during hearings and examine what proposals could have bipartisan support. Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links Contribute monthly or a lump sum via Support Congressional Dish via (donations per episode) Send Zelle payments to: Donation@congressionaldish.com Send Venmo payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Send Cash App payments to: $CongressionalDish or Donation@congressionaldish.com Use your bank's online bill pay function to mail contributions to: Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Background Sources Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes FTC Authority Ronald Mann. Apr 23, 2021. SCOTUSblog. Supreme Court of the United States. April 22, 2021. Junk Fee Overview Ashish A. Pradhan. May 19, 2023. The National Law Review. Will Kenton. January 24, 2023. Investopedia. Brian Deese et al. October 26, 2022. White House Briefing Room Blog. October 20, 2022. Federal Trade Commission. Brian Canfield et al. July 7, 2021. Institute for Policy Integrity, NYU School of Law. Internet *Federal Communications Commission Healthcare August 8, 2022. Federal Trade Commission. Banking/Payments Lindsey D. Johnson. July 26, 2023. Consumer Bankers Association. July 11, 2023. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Newsroom. Offices of Consumer Populations and Markets. May 23, 2023. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. October 26, 2022. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Newsroom. September 28, 2022. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Newsroom. August 16, 2022. Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General. August 16, 2022. U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Joe Valenti. March 30, 2022. * Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Blog. January 26, 2022. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Newsroom. December 7, 2020. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Newsroom. December 28, 2018. Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General. Housing July 19, 2023. White House Briefing Room. March 14, 2023. National Consumer Law Center. Jennifer Ludden. January 13, 2023. WBUR. Airlines Reid Bramblett. Frommer's. Suzanne Rowan Kelleher. Mar 7, 2023. Forbes. U.S. Department of Transportation. U.S. Department of Transportation. December 13, 2022. U.S. Department of Transportation. November 2022. Statista. Rosie Spinks. June 1, 2018. Quartz. May 2011. Jones Day. Hotels November 17, 2021. Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General. Christina Jelski. Mar 12, 2021. Travel Weekly. November 28, 2012. The Federal Trade Commission. Ticketing June 20, 2018. U.S. House of Representatives. Anne Bucher. June 13, 2018. Top Class Actions. “Susan Wang and Rene' Lee v. StubHub, Inc. Case” [No. CGC-18-564120]. The Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Francisco. Cars June 23, 2022. Federal Trade Commission. Laws Bills Audio Sources July 26, 2023 Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Protection Witnesses: Attorney General, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Director of Housing Advocacy, Atlanta Legal Aid Society Manager Director, Patomak Global Partners Clips Michelle Henry: In the consumer finance space, we recently filed a multi-state lawsuit against Mariner Finance, a Wall Street private equity-owned installment lender. Our lawsuit alleges that Mariner charged consumers junk fees for hidden add-on products that consumers either did not know about or did not agree to buy. These hidden add-on products, such as credit insurance and auto clubs, are typically low- or no-value products. Consumers left Mariner believing that they had entered into an agreement to borrow and repay over time a certain amount of money. In reality, because of these hidden junk fees, Mariner added hundreds to thousands of dollars to the total amount a consumer owed. The cost of the junk fees is staggering. For a random sample of loans originated in Pennsylvania in December of 2020, Mariner charged each consumer an average of $1,085 in junk fees for an average of $3,394 in cash borrowed. Michelle Henry: We also had a significant junk fee settlement in 2018 with Wells Fargo. This settlement stemmed from Wells charging its auto finance customers millions in junk fees. Despite evidence that many customers already had the required car insurance, Wells improperly charged more than 2 million accounts for force-placed insurance. To resolve the multi-state action, Wells agreed to pay states $575 million. Michelle Henry: In 2021, we announced the landmark junk fee settlement with Marriott International. For many years, travelers had been misled by the published rates offered by hotels for a night stay, only later to be hit with the mandatory resort fees when they were checking in. Thanks to our settlement, Marriott now has a policy in place to be upfront and transparent in the disclosure of mandatory fees, including resort fees, as part of the total price of a hotel stay, allowing consumers to compare total costs for hotels and find the one that is the best fit for them. Marriott was the first hotel chain to formally commit to the upfront disclosure of resort fees as part of the initial advertised price. We hope others will follow. Michelle Henry: In the end, what we are fighting here for is basic fairness and transparency. When consumers are shopping online or in person, they deserve to understand what a loan, a house, or a vacation will cost and exactly what key terms they're agreeing to. At the same time, all businesses deserve to compete on an even playing field, where the price is the price with no hidden surprise fees. Lindsey Siegel: My name is Lindsay Siegel and I'm the Director of Housing Advocacy at Atlanta Legal Aid, which provides free civil legal services to families with low incomes in the metro Atlanta area. Today, I will focus on the rental housing market and how predatory and hidden rental fees gouge families living in poverty and make their rent even more unaffordable than it already is. Miss Dixon is a single mother who found an online listing for an apartment in the fall of 2020. The advertisement said it rented for $1,400 per month. It did not list any other monthly fees she would be required to pay. She applied and paid $525 through the landlord's online portal, which covered her $50 application fee, a $175 moving fee, and a $300 screening fee, all of which were non-refundable. She was not able to see the lease or the apartment she'd be renting, but she knew if she did not pay sight unseen she would lose the apartment. And when her application was approved a few weeks later, the landlord charged her another $200 approval fee. She finally received and signed a copy of her lease just two days before she was slated to move in. It was 50 pages long and contained to eight different addenda. She had expected to pay her rent and for water. She didn't expect to be responsible for a package locker fee, a trash removal fee, a separate valet trash fee, a pest control fee, a technology package fee, an insurance fee, and a credit reporting fee. When the fees added up, $83 had been tacked on to her monthly rent. And to make matters worse, Miss Dixon's landlord did not accept the rent by cash, check, or money order. When she paid through the landlord's online portal she was charged another $72-per-payment convenience fee. The low income renters Atlanta Legal Aid represents have an extreme power imbalance with their landlords. The high demand for rental housing, especially at the more affordable end of the market, makes some landlords believe they can easily get away with unfair and deceptive lease terms and rental practices. The bait and switch Miss Dixon experienced where the landlord advertise the rent as one price only to raise it much higher with junk fees after she had spent hundreds of dollars up front is a far too common practice of many investor landlords in the Atlanta area. Low income renters like Miss Dixon become trapped. She couldn't afford to walk away from a predatory lease two days before she was supposed to move in, even if she realized it would be unaffordable. Of particular concern are the use of high application fees. They often far exceed the cost of running a report, and most renters have to pay them several times before finding a home to rent. We've heard reports that some institutional landlords even collect application fees after they've found a renter for an available home. Brian Johnson: The focus of the President's initiative has been on applying political pressure to companies to induce them to change their fee disclosure practices. In the process, the White House and supporting agencies have dismissed broad categories of fees as junk without ever providing any consistent definition of the term, which has created uncertainty as to which fees can be assessed by institutions without undue reputational or regulatory risk. Brian Johnson: The CFPB has been the most enthusiastic among regulators in heeding the President's call, indiscriminately attacking a growing list of common financial service fees, no matter that they are lawful and fully disclosed. Brian Johnson: The agency has publicly hectored companies about deposit account fees and used the implied threat of investigation to induce such companies to abandon these legal fees. Further, in addressing other fees, the CFPB appears appears to have violated its own regulations and laws governing how agencies proffer rules by disguising interpretive rules as policy statements in bulletins and issuing circulars that function as legislative rules. In another instance, under the guise of interpretation, the CFPB read a word into a statute to achieve its desired policy outcome. In still another, the agency treats the rulemaking process as a foregone conclusion, acting as though a still proposed rule has already taken effect, signaling that the agency has no interest in considering public comments, establishing an adequate evidentiary basis to support its conclusions, or considering potential changes to improve the rule. These examples demonstrate an abuse of power and the agency's disregard for process and the limits placed on it. Moreover, the CFPB's behavior subverts the authority of Congress to oversee the agency and legislate the legality of fees in our financial marketplace. Simply put, it's not playing by the rules. Lindsey Siegel: So I think the federal government does have a role to play. The CFPB could create best practices, investigate junk fees further -- especially those being charged for tenant screening reports -- could bring enforcement actions against debt collectors that engage in collection practices that violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act in their collection of rental debt especially includes collection of junk fees. And certainly, you know, HUD could further study and address the disproportionate impact of these practices on renters and rental applicants of color. Lindsey Siegel: Tenants living in Atlanta have a very hard time finding a rental, finding a home, that's not owned by a corporate landlord at this point. They have bought up many properties in the Atlanta area and they always seem to be working in lockstep so that once one institutional landlord is charging a certain kind of fee then another one tends to charge it as well. Just one example of this is the proliferation of landlords charging for insurance fees, and often tenants will think that these are renters insurance because they're often called renter's insurance. But it's not like traditional renter's insurance that protects the renter and their property if it's destroyed. What it does is protect the landlord and doesn't really provide a benefit to tenants at all. And we've seen that proliferate with investor landlords in particular. Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC): I can't imagine any reasonable member of Congress not saying, "I want the person to know what their financial obligation is when they sign an instrument, not after they read page 10 in the fine print." Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC): I'm less caught up in whether or not a trash collection fee is appropriate or not, and more caught up in, does that renter know at the point in time they're signing a lease what they're expected to pay every month? Michelle Henry: We often see things bleed over state lines and boundaries, as you are well aware, and so it's important that we work together to enforce these matters. Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-GA): How often do these kinds of cases cross state lines? And would having federal standards against these types of hidden fees make these cases easier to bring? Michelle Henry: Almost always. And I think that's critical. Where we have been most successful is joining with our fellow states, other attorneys general, partnering with them, and including the CFPB. In December of 2020, the CFPB, with all 50 states and the District of Columbia, filed enforcement action against Nationstar mortgage, again for deceptive practices, for not being transparent when they were servicing borrowers mortgages, and as a result of that joint effort we were able to obtain a settlement of $73 million and brought aid to 40,000 borrowers. Michelle Henry: You know, the reality is a lot of times consumers get misled. So they start, they're looking on the internet, they're trying to do due diligence and look for the best price, whether it's for a hotel, a vacation, and they're in there examining it, and they get led to a certain area of a certain website thinking that's the best price. And they go down this rabbit hole where they have no idea at the end of it that the price they thought they were going to pay for a hotel stay with their family is actually far larger because of fees that they weren't prepared, were not properly advised of, and at that point, they're so far in or they never discover it. So no, I don't think they understand exactly what to be aware of. We're trying to do our best to educate but far more work needs to be done, and I applaud this committee for working on it. Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-GA): If more federal agencies had the authority to address these hidden fees, how would that affect your office's capacity? Michelle Henry: It would help tremendously. Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-GA): Thank you so very much. Michelle Henry: If history is any lesson, we know that they can't be trusted to act in the best interest of consumers on their own. Look, they're in the business of making money for their shareholders and we need robust consumer protection rules and enforcement to ensure that. Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC): So what we're talking about here is not the "what," it's the "how." And I for one do not think that the regulator's who have demonstrated pushing the boundaries of their authority, giving them more authority is a good idea if we're coming up with a real bipartisan sustainable solution. Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC): The problem we have here too, when we transfer power out of Congress to another branch, yes, that changes every four years or so. So you may be thrilled with a regulatory regimen that comes out from the CFBP today, but because of the way they behaved, it'd be one of the first things I would work to repeal if the administration changed and withdraw it. Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC): I'd like to submit for the record a letter from the Consumer Bankers Association on the subject. Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC): Mr. Johnson, can you talk about the effect of the method that the CFPB is using to go after this and the impact that it can have, the negative implications that has? Is the CFPB's tendency to name and shame business institutions to avoid certain practices or adopt new ones effective regulation? They're not really thinking through the full impact and all the potential unintended consequences. Can you think of any example under this current leadership of the CFPB where they have taken that into consideration? Can you speak a little bit about the efforts and the length the CFPB goes in an effort to avoid judicial review and skirt the APA process? June 8, 2023 Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation: Subcommittee on Consumer Protection, Product Safety, and Data Security Witnesses: Chief Executive Officer, National Consumers League Bruce Greenwald Professor of Business, Marketing Division, Columbia Business School George Mason University Foundation Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia School of Law, George Mason University Clips 21:35 Sen. John Hickenlooper (D-CO): Simply put, these are fees that are disclosed to a consumer midway through or at the end of a transaction, or they're fees that serve no tangible purpose for a consumer, like a processing fee, and that they are mandatory or unavoidable. 28:00 Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN): The way I look at this issue, and the way many Tennesseans look at it, is this is another way for the FTC, the CFPB, DoT, and all these regulators to clamp down on businesses and try to micro manage businesses. 30:42 Dr. Vicki Morwitz: as a strategy where firms decide to divide a product's price into two or more mandatory parts, a base price for the main product and one or more mandatory surcharges, rather than charging a single all-inclusive price. For example, many hotels have a mandatory fee on top of the daily room rate. These are sometimes called resort fees, or facility fees, or destination fees and can range from $20 to over $50 a night. And many rental car agencies assess several mandatory fees on top of the daily rental rate, such as concession recovery fees, customer facility fees, energy recovery fees, and vehicle licensing fees. 31:20 Dr. Vicki Morwitz: In general, what research on partition pricing has shown is that when firms separate out mandatory surcharges consumers tend to underestimate the total price they'll have to pay and they're often more likely to complete the purchase. 31:50 Dr. Vicki Morwitz: With drip pricing, firms advertise only part of our products' price upfront and reveal other charges later, as shoppers go through the buying process. Drip fees can be mandatory or can be for optional items, but for today's testimony I'll focus on the dripping of mandatory surcharges. Drip pricing is commonly used in industries like the cable TV and the ticketing industries. When a consumer shops for a TV-Internet bundle from a cable television provider, they may first see an attractive base price offer for the bundle, but later learn there are also broadcast TV fees, set top box fees, regional sports fees, and TV connection fees that raise the price considerably. And a consumer shopping for a ticket for a live event, like a concert, a play, or a baseball game, typically first sees the price for different seats in the venue. After selecting a seat, as the consumer clicks through more webpages, they may come to learn there's also a mandatory booking fee, ticketing fee, venue fee, and delivery fee, even when the tickets are delivered electronically. Eventually, they see a total price that may be much higher than the first price they saw and they may be under time pressure to complete the purchase, as there might be a countdown clock that indicates they have to complete their purchase in just a few minutes. Or they may be told there's only two seats left at that price. 33:00 Dr. Vicki Morwitz: What research has shown is that when surcharges are dripped, consumers end up being more likely to buy a product that appears cheaper upfront based only on the base price, but that's more expensive and total given the drip fees. Consumers also tend to buy more expensive products than they otherwise would, such as a seat closer to the stage for a live event. 35:00 Dr. Vicki Morwitz: These policies will benefit consumers if they require that upfront stated prices must be all-inclusive. In other words, all mandatory fees must be included in the total price and that the total price should be seen upfront. This is what academic research suggests will be most beneficial to consumers. 39:20 Dr. Todd Zywicki: Everybody knows bags fly free on Southwest, everybody knows bags don't fly free on the legacy airlines, everybody knows there's going to be a fee for for bags on the other airlines and the like. Maybe there's ways you can disclose it, but nobody's fooled at this point. 42:45 Sally Greenberg: If consumers hate junk fees so much, why do companies large and small increasingly impose them? The answer is, unsurprisingly, because they are a substantial profit center. 43:20 Sally Greenberg: Late payment fees charged by banks and credit cards cost American families an estimated $12 billion annually. These fees, which can be as much as $41 for each Late Fee Payment, far exceed the cost to the issuer for processing and do little to deter future delinquent payments. 43:40 Sally Greenberg: Airlines are also poster children for junk fees. Globally, revenue from junk fees, ancillary fees in airline speak, brought in $102.8 billion in 2022. To put this in perspective, junk fees last year made up 15% of global airline revenues, compared to 6% only 10 years ago. 44:00 Sally Greenberg: Anyone who buys tickets to a concert or sporting event is well acquainted with the myriad fees. They're added at the end of the ticket buying process. We have the example that you showed, Senator Hickenlooper. Primary and secondary market ticketing companies charge service fees, order processing fees, delivery fees and other charges that increased ticket prices on average 27% for the primary market and 31% for the secondary market. 45:05 Sally Greenberg: Junk fees themselves are anti-competitive. They make comparing prices more difficult, distorting well functioning marketplaces. Honest entrepreneurs who invest in their businesses, innovate, and strive to create better value for their customers lose business. Action to address the consumer and competitive harm created by junk fees is urgently needed. 45:30 Sally Greenberg: First, we would urge you to support S. 916. It's the Junk Fee Prevention Act, which would require some of the worst abusers of junk fees to display the full price of services upfront, and they would bar excessive fees and ensure transparency. Second, we ask that Congress restore the FTC's ability to obtain strong financial penalties from wrongdoers. The Supreme Court, in 2021, overturned AMG Capital Management v. FTC, wiping out a critical enforcement tool for the commission. S. 4145, which is the Consumer Protection Remedies Act, would restore that ability to impose monetary relief to the commission. And finally, Congress must not allow businesses that trap consumers with unfair and deceptive fees to escape accountability through fine print in their contracts. To that end, we're proud to support S. 1376, the Forced Arbitration Injustice Repeal Act, which would prohibit pre-dispute arbitration agreements from being enforceable if they require arbitration in employment, consumer, antitrust, or civil rights disputes 44:35 Sally Greenberg: Renters, for example, tend to have lower incomes than those who own their homes. These consumers are also some of the most preyed upon by abusive junk fees. A 2022 survey conducted by Consumer and Housing Advocates found that 89% of landlords imposed some rental application fees[[ clare, 8/7/2023 2:09 PM couldn't find this specific survey]], nearly as many renters paid excessive late fees and they also get hit with utility, administrative, convenience, insurance, and notice fees. 51:30 Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN): I'm not hearing from Tennesseans about junk fees. They're just not talking about. They are talking about real economic harm. And I think for some it's been kind of perplexing that we would focus on this issue. I even had one Tennessean say, "Well, what exactly is a junk fee? And what are the economic harms that come to people for fees for discretionary services?" 53:20 Dr. Todd Zywicki: I can't see any reason why people who pay their credit cards on time should have to subsidize people who pay their credit cards late. The evidence is clear on this from the that if you reduce late fees, more people pay late. The makes clear that if you reduce late fees, everybody ends up paying higher interest rates and, and lower income and higher risk borrowers get less access to credit. So most of what we see in the market is efficient. It prevents cross consumer subsidies and a lot of these things that are labeled as junk fees are actually just efficient multi-part pricing. 1:00:30 Dr. Vicki Morwitz: When a larger firm, or really any firm, uses hidden fees or surcharges, it doesn't only hurt consumers, but it hurts well intentioned, honest competitors like many of our country's small businesses that you're talking about. So when a larger firm makes salient a lower base price and only puts in small print or only reveals at the end of the shopping process that there are additional mandatory fees, their product offerings may appear, at least at first, to be cheaper than those of say a small business, an honest competitor who uses all inclusive prices, whose prices at least at first then, will appear more expensive, even if they're actually cheaper in total when the hidden fees of the large firm are added in. Now, research shows this is going to lead consumers to be more likely to even first consider the products and services of the larger firm who uses hidden surcharges because their products seem cheaper. In other words, their supposed low prices draw consumers in. But then having first consider their products consumers will also be more likely to stick with that firm and ultimately purchase their products, even when they're more expensive in total with the fees. So these hidden fees, they don't only hurt consumers by leading them to make purchases that are against their own self interest, but it also hurts honest competitors who are using transparent pricing practices. 1:04:10 Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN): One area of this high excessive fees is ticketing. We had the hearing earlier this year with the president of Live Nation/ Ticketmaster, and other witnesses and as you are aware, the facts are quite startling. It's being reviewed by the Justice Department, including 90% monopoly on ticketing for major NFL, NHL events, 80% for major arena events, and 70% monopoly when it comes to all ticketing. In addition to that, Ticketmaster now owns a number of venues and also locks in a number of other venues that they don't own with their services for in excess of seven years, which is a subject of a bill that Senator Blumenthal and I have introduced, because this locking in makes for even less competition. And then finally, Live Nation promotes the act. So it's like a three cornered monopoly. 1:12:30 Sally Greenberg: Yes, you may know that you have a baggage fee, but there are many people who are older, who have disabilities, who may have children with them; they cannot be carrying their bags onto the airplane. So they are forced to eat the cost of a $35 fee, something that used to be free before, and has jammed our airplanes full of luggage up top, creating hazards for flight attendants as well. 1:13:55 Sally Greenberg: We certainly support the Good Jobs for Airports Act. I think many consumers had no idea that a lot of these workers were not making minimum wage[[ clare, 8/7/2023 2:08 PM couldn't find a source for this.]], were relying on tips. And many people who use the wheelchairs and the curbside baggage services did not know that people were living on tip wages and many people don't tip, as some of us who've been tipped workers know. Tipping is very up and down and certainly not a reliable source of income. So yes, we very much appreciate that legislation and it's long overdue. 1:21:20 Dr. Todd Zywicki: Junk fees is a meaningless term, but it's worse than meaningless. It's actually pernicious, which is that by sort of using this blanket conclusory label, it obscures the complexity of this, the difference between trip pricing, risk based pricing, multipart pricing, partition pricing, and that sort of thing, and it kind of sweeps into one bucket things that are legitimate, things that are aren't, things that might be partially legitimate. And now it's even got more confusing because if you look at the FTC rule, for example, on auto dealers, they take things like nitrogen filled tires, they charge more money for a claim that's a junk fee. The problem with that is not that it's a separate price for nitrogen filled tires. The problem, if there's a problem, is that nitrogen filled tires are garbage, right? There's nothing there. It doesn't matter whether it's disclosed separately or bundled in the price if it's a worthless product. And so when we talk about junk fees, we can end up confusing ourselves, lumping in things because we want to just apply this label to it, whereas I think it'd be much better to understand risk based pricing. What are things where they're pricing for something that you get no value from? What are the things where they're pricing things simply to extract wealth from consumers and the like? Executive Producer Recommended Sources Music by Editing Production Assistance

The NBA Schedule has been released and the league keeps doing a better and better job, but the lack of back to back games has an unintended consequence for the Utah Jazz and the NBA.Tony Jones of the athletic makes his final stop to talk about the rest of the NBA rosters, how Will Hardy will be different in year 2 and the show off the future generation of broadcasters.Locked On Jazz Podcast

The NBA Schedule has been released and the league keeps doing a better and better job, but the lack of back to back games has an unintended consequence for the Utah Jazz and the NBA. Tony Jones of the athletic makes his final stop to talk about the rest of the NBA rosters, how Will Hardy will be different in year 2 and the show off the future generation of broadcasters. Locked On Jazz Podcast