Westlaw Journals weekly round-up

February 20, 2013

Westlaw Journals Weekly RoundupThe new Westlaw Journals blog brings you litigation headlines in over 30 substantive areas of law.  Here are some highlights from the past week:

Employees exceeding authorized access? Trends in interpreting the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act: In this expert commentary, Scandaglia & Ryan partner Alan W. Nicgorski analyzes the different standards emerging from federal appellate courts as they interpret the statute in cases  involving employees who access their employers’ computer systems to steal valuable company information. (Computer & Internet)

A Republican politician’s advice for President Obama on energy and climate: Former Congressman Bob Inglis gives his suggestions to President Obama on how to deal with the problems of global warming and energy in another expert commentary. (Environmental)

Justice Department sues S&P over rating failures: The Justice Department has sued McGraw-Hill and subsidiary Standard & Poor’s Rating Services, alleging the companies’ credit ratings during the housing bubble misled and defrauded investors. The Justice Department’s complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, seeks damages in excess of $5 billion under the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989, Pub. L. No. 101-73. (Derivatives)

Ford Motor Co unveils the new 2011 Ford Explorer outside the Ford Motor World Headquarters in DearbornFord still faces $3 million settlement in rollover case: A Texas state appeals court has reversed a jury verdict that found that Ford Motor Co. was fraudulently induced into settling a rollover case for $3 million. Ford had argued that a note that the jury foreman sent to the trial judge made it appear as if the jury had decided the issue of liability and pushed the company into the agreement. (Automotive)

California appeals court OKs contract class-action bans: A California appeals court has ruled that a 2011 U.S. Supreme Court decision approving the use of class-action waivers means that consumer contracts that bar class actions and require individual arbitration are enforceable despite the state’s consumer protection law banning such waivers. The ruling by the 2nd District Court of Appeal contradicts Fisher v. DCH Temecula Imports LLC, 2010 WL 3192912 (Cal. Ct. App., 4th Dist. 2010), another state appeals court’s decision rendered before the high court’s landmark ruling in AT&T v. Concepcion, 131 S. Ct. 1740 (2011).  (Class Action)