In response to growing concerns of community spread of the coronavirus (COVID-19), sports organizations, local schools, and even the Houston Livestock Show & Rodeo have ceased operations for the foreseeable future. As businesses consider the human and health impact of this global pandemic, a common question raised is how any business interruptions and related financial losses may be covered by their insurance policies. Whether your business has drastically experienced economic loss or has temporarily closed its doors due to city-wide closures or travel restrictions, you may find relief from your insurance coverage provider.
Posts tagged "business litigation"
JPMorgan Chase, the country's largest bank and biggest U.S. credit-card issuer, has reintroduced to over 40 million credit card holders a controversial policy that forces their customers to use arbitration instead of being able to go to court to resolve payment disputes or joining class-action suits. This new clause stipulates that any disputes between consumers and Chase must be brought up before a private arbitrator.
While the newspapers, news broadcasters, and social media may highlight the most high-profile examples of corporate collapses and scandal, they are hardly isolated incidents. Well known corporations are behind some of the biggest scandals of the decade, some corporations include Wells Fargo, McKession Corp., and Equifax. Each story is result of a corporate culture that values profit over accountability, integrity, and opportunity, or in other words wants more "bang for its buck." The potential negative impact for corporate misconduct is the legal consequences, such as penalty, fines, and/or jail time. Despite this, corrupt corporations are willing to commit wrongful acts in order to gain large incentives. "The world's 20 leading banks spent an estimate $350 billion on costs related to misconduct over the last five years, including penalties, fines, settlements, and other legal expenses."
In the fine print of credit card agreements and bank deposit agreements, banks and credit card companies frequently require consumers to agree to give up their right to sue the bank in court-even for serious violations of consumer rights-and submit any claims to arbitration. In July, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau adopted a rule placing a rather mild restriction on such agreements-they could not prevent consumers from filing or joining class action lawsuits. However, a joint resolution has been proposed in Congress to block the rule under the Congressional Review Act, a law that provides an expedited process for Congress to overrule regulations issued by agencies of the executive branch. The resolution has already passed in the House of Representatives and is pending in the Senate.
Harris County, represented by firm attorney Benny Agosto, Jr. received an important win from a Houston appellate court in a property tax case involving a Houston oil refinery. In a 2-1 decision handed down last Thursday, the First Court of Appeals in Harris County v. Harris County Appraisal District reversed the trial court's ruling and rendered judgment that inventory held in a refinery operated by Pasadena Refining System, Inc. was not exempt from local property taxes under the federal Foreign Trade Zones Act. The exemption was claimed on crude oil, refined products, and other inventory valued at over $100 million during the relevant tax years, representing millions in tax revenue for Harris County and the other taxing jurisdictions.
The Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection recently issued a proposed rule that would restore consumers' rights to bring class-action lawsuits against financial firms, such as banks and credit card companies. The proposed rule would prevent enforcement of arbitration clauses requiring consumers to present their disputes to private arbitrators favorable to the financial firms.
The financial crisis of 2008, widely considered the worst since the Great Depression, stemmed from the securitization of risky mortgage loans sold to investors at wildly inflated prices. In essence, mortgage companies eager for even more business began encouraging borrowers to take out mortgages on homes they could not afford. These subprime mortgages - called "liar loans" by some because they were often based on falsified paperwork and inflated incomes - were then bought by investment banks that bundled them up and sold to big investors at prices that did not reflect the creditworthiness of the borrowers. When the housing bubble burst and borrowers began defaulting on their mortgage payments, the value of those investments declined, throwing the entire financial system into chaos and millions out of their homes.
In an opinion issued today, the Texas First Court of Appeals in Houston held that the trial judge in an underinsured motorist insurance case did not abuse his discretion by declining to sever and abate the plaintiff's claims under the Texas Insurance Code for misrepresentation of policy terms. This case is a significant development in an area where such "extra-contractual" claims have routinely be held to be severable.
In an ongoing lawsuit by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) against a Texas man it has accused of defrauding investors in a Ponzi scheme involving the popular "virtual currency" Bitcoin, Federal Magistrate Judge Amos Mazzant of the Eastern District of Texas re-affirmed in August his earlier denial of the defendants' motion to dismiss. In his ruling, Judgef Mazzant held that Bitcoin is "money" and that contracts involving the investment of Bitcoin rather than traditional currency are nonetheless subject to federal securities law. In an ironic twist, the ruling lends credibility to Bitcoin as a currency while simultaneously allowing the government to proceed in a case highlighting Bitcoin's risks and to potentially subject it to closer regulation-certainly an uncomfortable situation for a currency whose entire point is to serve as an alternative to government-sponsored legal tender.
After years of litigation, and a month long trial in December, a Houston jury has ruled that the Ashby high-rise project constitutes a nuisance for some of the neighboring residents. In its decision, the jury awarded almost $1.7 million to 20 of the 30 households that filed suit. The plaintiffs who were awarded damages will only receive them if the high-rise is actually built.