HP Shareholder Suits Over Autonomy Settle

Today Hewlett-Packard reached a settlement in shareholder lawsuits related to its acquisition of software firm Autonomy. Hp stockholders alleged CEO Meg Whitman didn't do enough to follow up on warning signs about weaknesses in Autonomy's financials and products. Hp claimed it was duped into paying more than $11 billion for Autonomy, because of willfully inflated financial statements at the U.K. firm. Autonomy's former CEO denied accusations of improper accounting. Hp continues to face other lawsuits and regulatory inquiries into the Autonomy deal, but the settlement reportedly demonstrates cleaning up the mess from the acquisition, which contributed to a huge write down and shake-up of Its board. See full story here-- http://bit.ly/1pFMmlo

Judge Lucy Koh Questions Tech Class Settlement

Major technology companies recently agreed to settle a class-action lawsuit in which 64,000 employees accused them of conspiring not to recruit each other's workers, suppressing compensation. The case alleged an inner circle of Silicon Valley executives communicated during a period when the interoperability of companies' products was often discussed. Embarrassing emails between company executives surfacing during E-discovery played a role in the settlement, with four tech companies agreeing to pay plaintiffs $324.5 million. Plaintiffs had planned to ask for about $3 billion in damages at trial, which could have been trebled under antitrust law. Last week, Judge Koh told plaintiffs during a hearing that they had leverage going into trial against the defendants, given the strength of emails showing former CEOs, such as Apple's Steve Jobs and Google's Eric Schmidt, were planning to enforce their no-poaching agreement. Reportedly, Judge Koh had concerns about whether the amount is really fair to the class and deferred a decision about whether to approve the deal. Though Plaintiffs' attorney said the workers faced serious risks on appeal all the way up, Judge Koh was skeptical the Supreme Court would get involved by further restricting class actions. She has previously approved separate settlements totaling $20 million reached by Disney's Lucasfilm and Pixar units, and Intuit. Apple, Google, Intel and Adobe are paying a higher premium to settle this case than Disney and Intuit did, as calculated by the number of employees from each company in the class. Avoiding executives appearing on the witness stand made a settlement attractive. The civil case followed a 2010 Justice Department case on the same matter. Trial was set to begin last month in California. See story here-- http://reut.rs/1q5cB3Y

NCAA Settles Player Likeness Lawsuit

The NCAA has agreed to pay $20 million to settle a class-action lawsuit filed by players whose likenesses were used in EA games developed by the EA Tiburon studio, Electronic Arts Inc.'s Central Florida division. The suit over royalties for videogames produced here was filed in 2009 by Sam Keller. According to the NCAA, the settlement will award money to certain Division I men’s basketball and bowl football student-athletes who attended certain institutions during the years the games were sold. “With the games no longer in production and the plaintiffs settling their claims with EA and the Collegiate Licensing Company, the NCAA viewed a settlement now as an appropriate opportunity to provide complete closure to the video game plaintiffs,” said NCAA Chief Legal Officer Donald Remy. The Keller lawsuit was scheduled to go to trial next year. Courts are expected to approve the agreement. EA Sports already settled a $40 million lawsuit with players and is no longer making its college football game. This news comes during E3, the Electronic Entertainment Expo, where EA is expected to announce its newest lineup of video games today. The NCAA hopes the settlement the will help it in the larger trial getting underway Monday, named for former UCLA star and lead plaintiff Ed O'Bannon. Reportedly, the settlement is historic in that the NCAA will cut a check to players for their on-field performance, though it maintains there is nothing illegal in prohibiting college athletes from earning money off their play while in school. See stories here-- http://bit.ly/TAtl5i and http://on.wsj.com/1uLM7DV

Oral Argument on Appellate Mediation Rule Changes

Oral argument occurred this morning on my proposed changes to the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure to conform with amendments previously passed and adopted by the Supreme Court of Florida in Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.720, governing Mediation Procedures. In my experience, attendance at appellate mediation is an important component of whether such cases resolve before briefing and the formalities of the rules can help the parties to anticipate with whom they'll be negotiating and the extent of authority they possess. Many times, trial and appellate counsel appear together, but it is the client that must decide whether to settle at this stage. I became certified as an appellate mediator in 2011, having been grandfathered in for mediating Florida appellate cases since 2001, before there even was a statewide certification. I was trained then by a federal mediator from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit for the Fifth District Court of Appeal's pilot program. Mediation works in about a third of cases on appeal. There are real results that can benefit parties who have already tried their dispute. The amendments to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.720 are designed to mirror those that have been in effect for mediation of trial court level cases since 2011. Mediated settlement conferences pursuant to this rule are meant to be conducted when the participants actually engaged in the settlement negotiations have full authority to settle the case without further consultation. The proposed amendments bring the same requirements to appellate mediation. This is expected to be adopted as part of the regular cycle change. See court documents here-- http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/clerk/comments/2014/index.shtml

Resolving being forgotten in Germany

Germany is considering arbitration on the issue of what information people can force internet search engines to remove from search results. A recent European Union court decision grants consumers the “right to be forgotten." The government could seek to establish “dispute-settlement mechanisms” for consumers who file so-called take-down requests. According to the Interior Ministry there, if search providers introduce automatic deletion, politicians, prominent figures and other persons would be able to hide or even delete reports they find unpleasant. Per the EU court, companies such as Google will have to review such requests on a case-by-case basis. Reportedly, in deciding whether to remove links, companies must balance issues, including how sensitive the information is, and whether there is a public interest. Apparently, the Germans don't plan to create a single mediating authority or to put mediators under state supervision. Negotiations with Google (which has not automated the process) and other providers will begin once the government has finalized its position. See full story here-- http://bloom.bg/1mHqGRb

Apple and Google Bury the Hatchet

Apple and Google settled all smartphone patent litigation between last week, dismissing their cases before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Interestingly, the settlement does not include a typical cross license of respective patents. Steve Jobs once called Android a "stolen product." Apple was unable to slow Android's growth to the majority of new mobile phones sold. In 2010, Motorola preemptively accused Apple of infringing several patents, including one essential to how cellphones operate on a 3G network, while Apple said Motorola violated its patents to certain smartphone features in 2011. U.S. District Judge Richard Posner dismissed that case in 2012 shortly before trial, saying neither company had sufficient evidence to prove its case. Last month, the appeals court gave Apple another chance to win a sales ban against Motorola. Google acquired Motorola Mobility in 2012 and recently agreed to sell its handset business to Lenovo, while keeping the vast majority of the patents. Google may have been encouraged to settle with Apple after regulators in the U.S. and Europe criticized the company for the legal strategy it employed with Motorola's patents. Motorola had pursued injunctions against Apple products based on patents that regulators said it was required to license to Apple. Apple's incentive to keep fighting the Motorola suit may have been diminished by the pending sale to Lenovo. See stories here-- http://on.wsj.com/1pbg90S and http://reut.rs/1p0pjgL and cases 2012-1528 & 2012-1549 at http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov

Consumer Reports Calls for Ban on Forced Arbitration

Calling arbitration an anti-consumer practice that’s becoming all too prevalent, Consumer Reports claims there isn't a single adult in the United States who is not subject to at least one binding mandatory arbitration clause. The magazine, through Consumers Union, its policy and advocacy arm, criticizes the take-it-or-leave-it way of settling disputes. Consumer Reports, which calls itself a public-service organization, says arbitration language is hidden in the fine print of an array of common consumer contracts, including cell phones and credit cards. The editors are disturbed that forced arbitration clauses are making their way into housing, employment, and nursing-home contracts. Their column states that proponents include corporations and the organizations representing arbitrators who frame arbitration as a benefit for consumers that offers a low cost, informal alternative to lawsuits. Forcing consumers to accept arbitration and give up their rights through legalese buried in the fine print raises red flags for consumer advocates, they say. Consumer Reports is backing the Arbitration Fairness Act, pending in Congress, that would ban the use of these forced-arbitration clauses in consumer and employment contracts. See editorial here- http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/news/2014/05/ban-the-use-of-these-forced-arbitration-clauses-in-consumer-and-employment-contracts/index.htm