Episode 345 -- Raytheon Pays $950 Million to Resolve Fraud, FCPA, ITAR and False Claims Act Violations
The ‘Long Arm’ of CIPA and Its Newfound Pen-Trap Claims
Episode 119 -- The Ericsson FCPA Settlement
The FTC filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against Seek Capital and its CEO, Roy Ferman, alleging that the company operated a bogus business finance scheme that cost small...more
Michigan Attorney General (AG) Dana Nessel filed a lawsuit seeking injunctive relief and dissolution of several limited liability companies owned by John and Michele Church. The Churches’ companies have allegedly violated the...more
Everyone has been talking about the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) lately, namely because the 2018 law became enforceable as of July 1, 2020. This law provides California consumers with a number of privacy-related...more
In Taggart v. Lorenzen, 139 S. Ct. 1795 (June 3, 2019), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a bankruptcy court may hold a creditor in civil contempt for attempting to collect on a debt that has been discharged in bankruptcy "if...more
On October 24, 2019, Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey filed a 200-page complaint against Exxon in Suffolk Superior Court, alleging violations of G.L. c. 93A, the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act. The lawsuit...more
Recently, the United States Supreme Court in Taggart v. Lorenzen set the legal standard that should be followed by bankruptcy courts when determining whether to hold a creditor in civil contempt for attempting to collect a...more
On June 3, 2019, Justice Breyer delivered a unanimous opinion of the Supreme Court conclusively establishing the standard courts must apply to hold a creditor in civil contempt for violation of a bankruptcy discharge order....more
On June 3, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Taggart v. Lorenzen, 139 S. Ct. 1795 (2019), that a bankruptcy court may hold a creditor in civil contempt for attempting to collect on a debt that has been discharged in...more
In Taggart v. Lorenzen, the U.S. Supreme Court reviewed the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals' Order, which affirmed the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel's Order vacating civil contempt sanctions against Bradley Taggart's ("Bradley")...more
The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to determine the applicable legal standard for holding a creditor in civil contempt when a creditor attempts to collect a debt that falls within an issued bankruptcy...more
When your customer is in bankruptcy, there are two major no-nos that you must remember. First, don't violate the automatic stay, which prevents a creditor from attempting to collect a debt while the debtor is in bankruptcy...more
In a unanimous decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled recently in Taggart v. Lorenzen that a creditor in a bankruptcy case may be held in civil contempt, and subject to sanction, where there is "no fair ground of doubt" about...more
Successful bankruptcy cases typically end with a court order releasing a debtor from liability for most pre-bankruptcy debts. This order, generally known as a “discharge order,” prohibits the debtor’s creditors from trying to...more
The U.S. Supreme Court has established an objective standard for determining whether a creditor should be held in civil contempt when the creditor attempts to collect a debt subject to a bankruptcy discharge order....more
On June 3, 2019, the Supreme Court decided Taggart v. Lorenzen, No. 18-489, holding that a court may hold a creditor in civil contempt for violating a bankruptcy court’s discharge order as long as there is “no fair ground of...more
On January 25, 2019, the Supreme Court of Illinois held in Rosenbach v. Six Flags Entertainment Corp. that an "aggrieved" person entitled to seek damages and injunctive relief under Illinois' Biometric Information Privacy Act...more
Since the passage of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) in 2008, it has been used by plaintiffs’ attorneys to sue companies that use biometric identification technologies. Many BIPA cases have failed...more
In a highly anticipated ruling, the Illinois Supreme Court on January 25, 2019, held that plaintiffs who violated the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act — which regulates the collection of biometric information such...more
• On January 25, 2019, the Illinois Supreme Court issued a decision interpreting the Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) in the Rosenbach v. Six Flags Entertainment Corp. appeal. The court ruled that a plaintiff does not...more
The Illinois Supreme Court ruled on January 25 in Rosenbach v. Six Flags Entertainment Corp. that a plaintiff can allege a violation of rights under the state’s Biometric Information Protection Act (BIPA) even without...more
In the past few weeks, five putative class action lawsuits have been filed under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”), 740 ILCS 14/1 et seq., targeting defendants in the health care, senior living,...more