Legal Disclaimer
You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review s (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC s Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.
Legal Disclaimer
You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review s (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC s Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.
Legal Disclaimer
You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review s (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC s Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.
Monday, March 8, 2021
One of the nice things about serving as your own webmaster is I can monitor the search terms that lead to tcpaworld.com visits, giving me pretty good insight in terms of what’s on YOUR minds out there.
I’ve seen a number of recent queries regarding the TCPA and the workplace; specifically does the TCPA apply to employers trying to contact their employees using automated technology.
Although the short answer is “yes” there is actually a bit of nuance to this, so let’s spend a few minutes together.
First, there is no question that the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) can, and often does, apply to messages sent by employers to employees. This is true even if the message is informational in nature and not telemarketing.
Sunday, March 7, 2021
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit recently concluded that investment advisor Ruane Cunniff & Goldfarb must face a proposed class action under ERISA Section 502(a)(2) for breach of fiduciary duty relating to its alleged mismanagement of a profit-sharing plan sponsored by DST Systems, Inc.
Cooper v. Ruane Cunniff & Goldfarb Inc., No. 17-2805 (2d Cir. March 4, 2021). The suit challenges Ruane’s allegedly “catastrophic over-allocation” of plan assets to shares in Valeant Pharmaceuticals, which dramatically declined in value in 2015-2016.
In 2016, Clive Cooper, who had been employed by DST and participated in DST’s profit-sharing plan, filed the lawsuit naming Ruane, DST, and others as Defendants. Then Cooper successfully mediated his claims with DST and others, voluntarily dismissing his claims against all Defendants except Ruane.