January 22, 2013 by Robert Tharp at 4:11:00 am
Eight long years after the filing of a groundbreaking lawsuit on behalf of hundreds of terrorism victims, Dallas trial lawyer Mark Werbner says last week's federal appellate court ruling is a key step in finally getting the case in front of a judge and jury. As reported by Law360 and others, the ruling means that terrorism victims can continue the lawsuit against Jordan-based Arab Bank over claims that the bank and its New York branch served as catalysts for financing worldwide terrorism activities.
Writes Law360: Friday's decision upholds an earlier ruling by U.S. District Judge Nina Gershon, which imposed tough sanctions on Arab Bank for failing to turn over documents the plaintiffs said would link them to terrorist financing rings. The sanctions included instructions to jurors that they could infer from the Arab Bank's refusal to comply with discovery requests that the bank willfully and knowingly provided financial services to foreign terrorist organizations.
"It's an exciting, clear, important victory for the families who suffered losses by terrorism," Werbner told Law360 on Friday. "I really believe that with this opinion today, the trial judge is going to set it for trial."
The original lawsuit, Courtney Linde , et al. v. Arab Bank, PLC, No. 04 CV 2799, was filed in 2004 under the 1990 Anti-Terrorism Act. Currently, more than 100 families and 700 individuals in the Linde case and related cases are seeking more than $1 billion in damages based on Arab Bank's alleged role in financially supporting terrorist activities.
The plaintiffs claim that Arab Bank provided "systematic" financial support to the families of all Palestinian terrorists killed, injured or incarcerated since the start of the Al-Aqsa (Second) Intifada in the Fall of 2000. Specially, the plaintiffs say Arab Bank administered a terrorist death-and-dismemberment insurance scheme that allowed families of so-called "martyrs" to collect financial payments by registering with the bank.
"We are extremely pleased that the 2nd Circuit has cleared the way for our clients to go to trial on behalf of their loved ones who suffered severe injuries and lost their lives as a result of terrorist acts," says Werbner, cofounder of Dallas-based Sayles Werbner. "Arab Bank should be held accountable for its role in terrorism, and my clients are looking forward to presenting their evidence before a judge and jury."
January 18, 2013 by Robert Tharp at 11:43:00 am
The New Year’s confetti is long gone and the U.S. workforce has been back on the job for a few solid weeks, and with that workers are finding something sobering in their first paychecks of 2013. As a result of the late-hour fiscal cliff brinkmanship, U.S. employees’ share of the Social Security payroll tax has reverted back to 6.2 percent (it was temporarily reduced in 2010 to 4.2 percent). That means a worker earning $50,000 this year will see $38.46 less in each twice-monthly paycheck. That’s some real pocket change for families out there living on the narrow margins, something Bloomberg Businessweek dubs “the anti-stimulus.”
The tax is no doubt a touchy subject around many workplace watercoolers, and employment lawyer Rachel Ziolkowski warns that employers need to be cautious in how they discuss this tax hit with their work force. "Employers should feel free to communicate the impact of the tax, but they should stick to the facts and avoid expressing political opinions that criticize or rationalize the increase," says Ziolkowski, a lawyer at Dallas' Gruber Hurst Johansen Hail Shank. "Such comments could lead to unwelcome political debates in the workplace and cause an already upset employee to make a discriminatory claim about their employer based on political beliefs."
January 17, 2013 by Dave Moore at 3:00:00 pm
Big Tex rates up there with barbecue and the Alamo for what makes Texas, Texas. It’s no wonder that when the State Fair of Texas icon burst into flames on Oct. 19 due to an electrical short, many Texans acted as though they’d lost a member of their family. Some Texans left flowers and photographs at the site of the disaster, mourning his passing.
Mitchell Glieber, vice president of marketing for the State Fair, tells WFAA-TV that Big Tex was the symbol of the 126-year-old fair.
He is definitely our icon. He is our Mickey Mouse. It's sad to see, but obviously we will be able to rebuild Big Tex and he'll be back here for sure for the 2013 State Fair of Texas.
However, media reports indicate that Big Tex was insured by the fair for only $200,000 – only half of his anticipated replacement cost.
On Dec. 27, reports surfaced that the fair’s board of directors is seeking private contributions to help bridge the gap and rebuild Big Tex, giving Texans another way to show their support for their favorite 52-foot-tall cowboy after he was burned to a crisp.
According to Dallas insurance attorney Marc Fanning, the fact that the appeal for money came during the holidays was probably more than coincidence.
“It’s very clever of the state fair to kind of tug on everyone emotionally at this time of year, in the giving season, to try to help them cover their shortfall,” Fanning, of the Dallas office of Fanning Harper Martinson Brandt & Kutchin, P.C., tells KLIF-AM.
Fanning adds that it is somewhat unusual that an organization would ask for help when it found itself underinsured. “I think it would only happen in the case of an icon like Big Tex, or some other landmark that is destroyed,” Fanning says. The state fair likely saved a substantial sum of money over the decades by not insuring 60-year-old Big Tex for full replacement value, he says.
January 4, 2013 by Robert Tharp at 12:00:00 am
Ah, the Texas Legislature. According to the Texas Tribune, it's five months of fierce legislating — a bit of which has as much to do with politics and elections as with governing the state. Whatever you call it, the flurry of bill filing has already begun in advance of Tuesday’s official start of the 20-week legislative session.
Already attracting serious debate is a bill filed by Rep. Helen Giddings, D-DeSoto, that(mirroring laws already in place in six other states) would forbid employers from requiring prospective and current employees from disclosing their social media login credentials. As detailed by Law360, H.B. 318 would bar employers from requesting employees' passwords to social media sites like LinkedIn and Facebook. Employment lawyers point out that the bill is unclear on several important details, including the kind of damages, if any, that employers would face for violating the rule.
Writes Law360: Loopholes in the bill could let employers bypass its rules. While the legislation would clearly bar employers from requesting employees' passwords, its language leaves open the possibility that a company could make an applicant or employee log on to an account, then view it in what's known as "shoulder surfing," according to Michael McCabe of Munck Wilson Mandala LLP. Clarification on whether employers could use information publicly available on social media sites to evaluate prospective employees will also be crucial, he said.
Additionally, employment attorney Stephen E. Fox of Fish & Richardson notes that the bill lacks a distinction between job applicants and existing employees. For example, there are valid reasons why an employer, in certain instances, might need to access an employee’s social media files.
An employer may want the right to look at social media profiles to determine if an employee out on medical leave is faking injuries, he said. And a company may want to be able to require passwords to LinkedIn accounts to ensure former employees aren’t using the site to communicate with past clients in violation of nonsolicitation agreements, he said.
“The business community will seek to significantly narrow the restraints of this bill, not in the application process, but in the context of potentially conducting an investigation while the person is employed,” Fox said. Businesses also will want the bill to let them seek social media information in the course of litigation discovery, according to Fox.
Still, the privacy implications for employees deserve consideration as well, he said. “Arguably, giving people access to social media sites is allowing the employer to invade privacy in a way that hasn’t been done before,” Fox said. “That’s a legitimate concern, and we have to find the right balance.”
Others question whether Giddings’ bill represents a solution in search of a problem, noting that few reporters are requesting this kind of information during the job interview process.
Stephen Fink of Thompson & Knight LLP said in his experience it’s rare for a company to request the information outside investigations of suspected wrongdoing, such as disclosure of trade secrets or derogatory statements about a manager.
“Maybe Texas isn’t representative of the nation as a whole, but it does look to me more like a warning to employers than actually addressing a widespread practice,” Fink said.
Law Firm News
Tex Parte Blog
WSJ Law Blog