LITIGATION UPDATES – MAY 2015

Pacquiao hit with a bevy of class-action suits seeking to knock-out part of his incredible payday

Boxing fans who paid to watch Manny Pacquiao and Floyd Mayweather Jr. in the “Fight of the Century” have flocked to courthouses to file proposed class actions against Pacquiao and boxing promotion company Top Rank Inc., saying they would not have paid to watch the fight if they had known Pacquiao was injured.  At least seven class actions were filed against Top Rank and Pacquiao in Texas, Nevada, Florida, New Jersey, Illinois and California.

Secret phone recording bill makes headway

A California state legislative committee advanced a bill that would allow companies to start recording cellphone conversations without first telling their customers.  California state law requires so-called “two party consent,” which provides that all parties to a phone conversation be told about or agree to the recording of a conversation.  Under AB 925, the law wouldn't apply to the recording of non-confidential communications between a person or business and a current or former customer of the person or business, or a person reasonably believed to be a current or past customer, that pertain to their business relationship.

 Will use of “red skins” as school mascot name be banned in California?

The California Assembly voted 60-9 to approve AB 30, or the California Racial Mascots Act, in a show of bipartisan support for a measure that would prohibit public schools from using “redskins” as a team name, mascot or nickname beginning on Jan. 1, 2017. The bill, if signed into law, could see the state become the first in the country to prohibit use of the term in public schools.

Pay-for-delay challenges upheld in California Supreme Court

The California Supreme Court ruled that so-called pay-for-delay pharmaceutical patent settlements can be challenged under state antitrust law, reviving drug buyers' claims that Bayer Corp. illegally paid generic manufacturers $400 million to delay launching their own version of blockbuster antibiotic Cipro.  The state's highest court concluded that the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark decision allowing Hatch-Waxman Act payments to be challenged under federal antitrust law also supported permitting similar lawsuits under California's competition laws.  As a result, the state court overturned decisions by two lower courts that threw out the long-running litigation and paved the way for Cipro purchasers to forge ahead with their claims against various drug companies.

 

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *

*
*