We had some cases with interesting facts come up this week.
The United States Supreme Court issued a ruling on providing survivor benefits to children conceived by in vitro fertilization, with frozen sperm, after the father died. In Astrue v. Capato, Respondent mother of the twins applied for Social Security survivors benefits for the twins, relying on 42 U.S.C. 416(e) of the Social Security Act, which defined child to mean, inter alia, “the child or legally adopted child of an [insured] individual.” The Social Security Administration denied the application, reading the act to entitle biological children to benefits only if they were qualified to inherit as a decedent under state intestacy law. The USSC upheld this interpretation, ruling that it was more in tune with the purpose of the statute, to provide for children who were supported by the deceased wage earner.
Facebook faces a lawsuit by new shareholders in the social networking company, filed less than a week after its IPO.
The shareholders allege that Facebook misled them by filing untrue statements in legal filings with the S.E.C., failed to prevent such statements from being misleading, and did not properly prepare the documents for prospective shareholders.
While another shareholder sued NASDAQ yesterday over the exchange’s acknowledged trading glitches, but this lawsuit specifically targets Facebook, board members, and investment banks.
A class action lawsuit was filed yesterday against NASDAQ by an individual investor accusing the stock exchange of botching his Facebook stock (FB) orders on the day of the IPO.
Plaintiff Phillip Goldberg alleges that he “placed purchase and cancellation orders for Facebook’s stock that NASDAQ failed to promptly and accurately execute” last Friday, May 18, 2012, causing he and scores of other investors to suffer losses on their trades (view the lawsuit below).
Knowing this, lawyers serve their clients well by making concise, memorable, and effective arguments.
Take Cal Tech’s attorneys, for example. On Friday, they told the U.S. International Trade Commission (‘ITC’) that “RIM’s mobile phones and tablets are not essential to the public’s health and welfare and are hardly comparable to nuclear devices or burn beds.”
We have some interesting employment law cases this week.
At the intersection of employment, civil rights, and religious freedom comes Hamilton v. Southland Christian School, Inc. from the 11th Circuit. In that case, a small Christian school had fired a teacher after she had sought maternity leave, purportedly because she had conceived the child before her recent marriage. On appeal, the 11th Circuit reversed the District Court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the school on Hamilton’s Title VII pregnancy discrimination claim, finding that Hamilton had presented sufficient evidence that the decision to fire her was more about her pregnancy and request for maternity leave, instead of her admission concerning premarital sex. As such, the Court ruled that resolving this genuine issue of material fact should be reserved for the jury.
A new class-action lawsuit accuses Apple of raining on iCloud users’ service, charging that the company’s promise that “migrating from MobileMe to iCould would be ‘effortless’ was one of many “misrepresentations” to consumers.
The lawsuit alleges that Apple duped MobileMe customers into believing that they would get a newer, improved service, but that “their forced migration to the iCloud platform” has resulted in them “not be[ing] able to access the features they were promised by Apple.”