Verizon Wireless to offer $15 data promotion | Reuters

Verizon Wireless, the biggest U.S. mobile operator, will start offering a lower priced mobile data service with limited downloads on October 28, according to a person familiar with the matter.

The move by the venture of Verizon Communications (VZ.N) and Vodafone Group Plc (VOD.L) follows smaller rival AT&T Inc’s (T.N) elimination of unlimited data service plans earlier this year, when AT&T also introduced a choice of lower-priced plans with limited downloads of items such as email or games.

Verizon Wireless has said recently it would move to tiered pricing but the company declined to comment on Tuesday.

via Verizon Wireless to offer $15 data promotion | Reuters.

LinkedInPinterestEvernoteWordPressBlogger PostEmailShare

French DPA Releases New Guidance on Personal Data Security : Privacy & Information Security Law Blog

On October 7, 2010, the French Data Protection Authority (the “CNIL”) released its first comprehensive handbook on the security of personal data (the “Guidance”).  The Guidance follows the CNIL’s “10 tips for the security of your information system” issued on October 12, 2009, which were based on the CNIL’s July 21, 1981 recommendations regarding security measures applicable to information systems.

The Guidance reiterates that data controllers have an obligation under French law to take “useful precautions” given the nature of the data and the risks associated with processing the data, to ensure data security and, in particular, prevent any alteration or damage, or access by non-authorized third parties (Article 34 of the French Data Protection Act).  Failure to comply with this requirement is punishable by up to five years imprisonment or a fine of €300,000.

The Guidance provides general recommendations and best practices aimed at assisting data controllers with the implementation of appropriate security measures.

via French DPA Releases New Guidance on Personal Data Security : Privacy & Information Security Law Blog.

LinkedInPinterestEvernoteWordPressBlogger PostEmailShare

Inquiry blog – Discovery of Documents in Australian Federal Courts « e-Disclosure Information Project

An Inquiry into the law, practice and management of the discovery of documents in litigation before Australian Federal Courts was launched by the Attorney-General in May 2010. I wrote about it at the time (see Terms of Reference for Australian Discovery review), and see it as one of the most important pending developments in discovery (and therefore necessarily in electronic discovery / e-disclosure) in hand anywhere in the world at the moment. The other, of course, is the UK’s e-disclosure practice direction and electronic documents questionnaire which will take effect on 1 October 2010.

These two initiatives have significance, even for the US as it struggles with the implications, in time and in costs, of handling electronic documents proportionately. I am moderating a panel at the Masters Conference in Washington on 4 to 6 October which will consider these UK and Australian developments and will suggest that even the US has something to learn from them.

The duty of consulting and reporting on discovery falls on the Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC). The ALRC has set up a blog called Discovery of Documents in Federal Courts to report on its progress, to raise subjects for discussion and to capture comments. The Attorney-General’s Terms of Reference can be found there; as I said in my original post, the reiterated use of the words “as early as possible” points the enquiry in what is obviously the right starting place.

via Inquiry blog – Discovery of Documents in Australian Federal Courts « e-Disclosure Information Project.

LinkedInPinterestEvernoteWordPressBlogger PostEmailShare

More Attorneys Exploring Third-Party Litigation Funding | NY Law Journal

Ask Louis M. Solomon where his fees are coming from these days, and you will get a complicated answer.

Solomon, who joined Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft earlier this year, counts corporations such as Bristol-Myers Squibb and PepsiCo as part of his book of business. Yet while companies like those still are generally paying his fees, lately the source of funds is not just his clients’ corporate war chests but money they received from investors looking to take stakes in the lawsuits he files for them.

Solomon, 54, is among a handful of corporate litigators handling commercial disputes with outside, third-party litigation funding. Two litigation funds have in the last three years launched initial public offerings, and both are on the lookout for U.S. litigants who would allow them to finance their cases in return for a portion of any settlement or judgment.

Juridica Investments Limited, which launched in 2007, last month reported that through March it had committed almost $123 million to 15 investments in 22 cases, one of which is in New York, according to a spokesman. Burford Capital Ltd., which went public in October, has so far invested $40 million across 10 cases, many of them international arbitrations.

But the practice of allowing outside investors into lawsuits is not without its critics. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce in October called for the prohibition of third-party litigation financing at all levels.

Selvyn Seidel, a former Latham & Watkins partner who is chairman of the investment advisor side of Burford, said the concern is understandable given the relative newness of the investment funds in the United States.

“The industry’s biggest enemy is unawareness,” he said. “And most of the lawyers in the U.S. are unaware of it.”

Third-party litigation funding is a relatively recent phenomenon in the United States, after establishing itself in Australia, then later in the United Kingdom. Until recently, in the United States it tended to focus on consumer disputes like personal injury claims, with advances of $1,750 to $4,500 in exchange for a percentage of the recovery, according to a Juridica-funded report by RAND Corporation released last month.

The newer phenomenon has been the emergence of investors like Juridica and Burford, which finance commercial claims brought by companies against other companies. While not alone in the field — Credit Suisse has a unit that invests in litigation — Juridica and Burford are two of the largest funds dedicated solely to litigation finance. Both are publicly traded on the Alternative Investment Market in the United Kingdom, where investors are likely more familiar with these types of funds.

Burford raised about $130 million in an October IPO and is looking to invest in commercial disputes. It plans to make average investments exceeding $3 million, and expects to have its capital fully committed by October 2011. Seidel declined to provide details on a suit in which Burford has invested.

via Law.com – More Attorneys Exploring Third-Party Litigation Funding.

LinkedInPinterestEvernoteWordPressBlogger PostEmailShare

More Attorneys Exploring Third-Party Litigation Funding | NY Law Journal

Ask Louis M. Solomon where his fees are coming from these days, and you will get a complicated answer.

Solomon, who joined Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft earlier this year, counts corporations such as Bristol-Myers Squibb and PepsiCo as part of his book of business. Yet while companies like those still are generally paying his fees, lately the source of funds is not just his clients' corporate war chests but money they received from investors looking to take stakes in the lawsuits he files for them.

Solomon, 54, is among a handful of corporate litigators handling commercial disputes with outside, third-party litigation funding. Two litigation funds have in the last three years launched initial public offerings, and both are on the lookout for U.S. litigants who would allow them to finance their cases in return for a portion of any settlement or judgment.

Juridica Investments Limited, which launched in 2007, last month reported that through March it had committed almost $123 million to 15 investments in 22 cases, one of which is in New York, according to a spokesman. Burford Capital Ltd., which went public in October, has so far invested $40 million across 10 cases, many of them international arbitrations.

But the practice of allowing outside investors into lawsuits is not without its critics. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce in October called for the prohibition of third-party litigation financing at all levels.

Selvyn Seidel, a former Latham & Watkins partner who is chairman of the investment advisor side of Burford, said the concern is understandable given the relative newness of the investment funds in the United States.

“The industry’s biggest enemy is unawareness,” he said. “And most of the lawyers in the U.S. are unaware of it.”

Third-party litigation funding is a relatively recent phenomenon in the United States, after establishing itself in Australia, then later in the United Kingdom. Until recently, in the United States it tended to focus on consumer disputes like personal injury claims, with advances of $1,750 to $4,500 in exchange for a percentage of the recovery, according to a Juridica-funded report by RAND Corporation released last month.

The newer phenomenon has been the emergence of investors like Juridica and Burford, which finance commercial claims brought by companies against other companies. While not alone in the field — Credit Suisse has a unit that invests in litigation — Juridica and Burford are two of the largest funds dedicated solely to litigation finance. Both are publicly traded on the Alternative Investment Market in the United Kingdom, where investors are likely more familiar with these types of funds.

Burford raised about $130 million in an October IPO and is looking to invest in commercial disputes. It plans to make average investments exceeding $3 million, and expects to have its capital fully committed by October 2011. Seidel declined to provide details on a suit in which Burford has invested.

via Law.com – More Attorneys Exploring Third-Party Litigation Funding.

LinkedInPinterestEvernoteWordPressBlogger PostEmailShare

Is Climate-Change Litigation the New Asbestos? – Law Blog – WSJ

Back in October, LB colleague Nathan Koppel offered up this post on a Fifth Circuit decision allowing a lawsuit brought by Hurricane Katrina victims. The plaintiffs’ allegation: That oil and coal companies emitted greenhouse gasses that contributed to global warming that, in turn, caused a rise in sea levels, adding to Hurricane Katrina’s ferocity.

The NYT on Wednesday has spilled a goodly amount of ink exploring an unrelated but similar suit up in Alaska. Kivalina, an Inupiat Eskimo village of 400 that sits on an island north of the Arctic Circle, has sued some two dozen companies of helping to cause the climate change that it says is destroying the island.

The NYT’s John Schwartz explains that the village has asked the companies, which include ExxonMobil and Shell Oil, to pay the costs of relocating to the mainland.

Similar cases, reports Schwartz, are pushing ahead around the country. In recent months, two federal appeals courts reversed decisions by federal district courts to dismiss climate-change lawsuits, allowing the cases to go forward. Kivalina is hoping for a similar fate: A federal judge in San Francisco in October dismissed the case, but the village has appealed.

Do these cases really stand a chance? Schwartz quotes one expert who feels “the game pieces are being set for eventual Supreme Court review.”

But even if the cases fall short of the high court, they might still have an impact. They could drive industries to the negotiating table.

The cases are largely being brought under the common-law doctrine of nuisance, a theory which hasn’t gained a lot of traction in other contexts, like lead paint. But some think such suits might take hold now. Or soon.

via Is Climate-Change Litigation the New Asbestos? – Law Blog – WSJ.

LinkedInPinterestEvernoteWordPressBlogger PostEmailShare

Judge Scheindlin analyzes the law of spoliation : Electronic Discovery Blog

Plaintiff producers were a group of investors who had brought an action to recover $550 million lost as a result of the liquidation of two British Virgin Island hedge funds. In October, 2007, the Citco Defendants claimed that large gaps in plaintiffs’ document production had been found. Depositions were held and declarations submitted between October, 2007 and June 2008. As a result of this discovery, defendant requestors moved for sanctions, alleging that plaintiffs had failed to properly preserve and produce documents, and had submitted false declarations regarding their efforts.

Judge Scheindlin then undertook an exhaustive review of the various aspects of the law underlying spoliation:

I begin with a discussion of how to define negligence, gross negligence, and willfulness in the discovery context and what conduct falls in each of these categories. I then review the law governing the imposition of sanctions for a party’s failure to produce relevant information during discovery. This is followed by factual summaries regarding the discovery efforts – or lack thereof – undertaken by each of the thirteen plaintiffs against whom sanctions are sought, and then by an application of the law to those facts.

Id. at *5-*6. The judge concluded that all plaintiffs were either negligent or grossly negligent in meeting their discovery obligations; thus, sanctions were required.

via Judge Scheindlin analyzes the law of spoliation : Electronic Discovery Blog.

LinkedInPinterestEvernoteWordPressBlogger PostEmailShare