It began with Harvey Weinstein. The outpour of support for victims of Weinstein’s predation has encouraged a wave of women to open up about sexual misconduct that they have faced from a number of prominent men in our society. Longtime NBC anchor, Matt Lauer, is the most recent public figure to face allegations. Though, like most that have faced these recent allegations, Mr. Lauer was relieved of his current job, one pressing question still remains: will Mr. Lauer face legal repercussions for his actions?

Like so many questions that have to do with the law, the short answer is: it depends. For Mr. Lauer and most other prominent men that have been accused of sexual assault and other forms of sexual misconduct, the statute of limitations in the various states in which they have been accused is the most important determinant when considering the potential legal liability of these men.

In Mr. Lauer’s case, his alleged conduct occurred in the state of New York. In New York, an accuser has two to five years to allege criminal sexual assault cases, but there is no statute of limitations for rape allegations. In the civil context, accusers have up to seven years to bring a suit under New York’s Gender-Motivated Violence Act for a “crime of violence motivated by gender”. Further, claims against employers and co-workers for unwanted sexual advances and lewd remarks can be brought up to three years after the incident occurs.

Under Federal Law (Title 7 of the Civil Rights Act), accusers have only 300 days to bring claims of quid pro quo or creation of a hostile work environment. In this circumstance, however, accusers first take their claims to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), which can bring a lawsuit against the employer but, importantly, not against individuals. Additionally, this route would preclude an accuser’s ability to bring a suit themselves.

To date, NBC has reportedly received at least three separate complaints regarding Mr. Lauer’s inappropriate sexual misconduct. The most recent publicized allegations involved conduct that occurred in 2014, which could potentially subject Mr. Lauer to criminal and civil charges under New York state law. An allegation detailing an incident that allegedly occurred in 2001 could only be brought against Mr. Lauer as a rape charge because the statute of limitations has been exhausted for all other avenues.

It is important to note that, thus far, the women that have accused Mr. Lauer have done so without revealing themselves to the public. In order to subject Mr. Lauer to legal repercussions, these women would likely have to shed their anonymity, and risk uprooting their careers as well as their personal lives. Difficult personal decisions and legal questions must be answered before we’ll see if Mr. Lauer (and others that have been similarly accused) should fear not only the end of their careers, but also the force of the rule of law.

Matt Lauer is No Longer at NBC, but will he Face Legal Repercussions (PDF)

The U.S. Department of Justice sued AT&T Inc. (AT&T) on November 20, 2017 to block its $85.4 billion acquisition of Time Warner Inc. (Time Warner), saying the deal would “greatly harm American consumers.”

AT&T is one of the nation’s largest internet and telephone providers and the largest satellite company and television distributor in the United States. Time Warner ranks among the largest content suppliers, including content from HBO, Warner Bros., TNT and CNN.

The Justice Department is arguing that the deal violates antitrust law because it would sufficiently harm consumers and weaken competition. Since AT&T would be able to charge more for licensing of valuable programming, consumers would most likely face higher prices for cable or satellite television subscriptions. Furthermore, the merger would slow the industry’s transition to online video and other new distribution models.

AT&T argues that the government’s lawsuit is a “departure from decades of antitrust precedent” because of AT&T and Time Warner do not compete with each other. Vertical mergers like this are routinely approved because they benefit consumers without removing a competitor from the market. AT&T contends that there is no legitimate reason for its merger to be treated differently. Moreover, AT&T contends that it needs media content in order to compete against internet firms for digital advertising dollars and subscribers.

This is the first merger blocked during the Trump Administration. AT&T speculates that the attention comes as a result of President Trump’s criticism of CNN since taking office. Whether or not President Trump played a direct role in the Justice Department’s attempt to block the deal is a subject of debate. But the move maybe indicate that the Trump administration will look closely at other big mergers.

Before the lawsuit, the Justice Department asked AT&T to sell off some assets. AT&T rejected the Justice Department’s demand to divest DirecTV or Time Warner’s Turner Broadcasting – which contains news network CNN.

At this time, AT&T is still continuing to talk with the government to negotiate a settlement. But as the process continues, there will be little opportunity for AT&T to settle the case. A lengthy, drawn-out court battle could cause AT&T and Time Warner to give up on the deal. AT&T stated that the company was prepared to defend itself in the court.

Justice Department sues to block ATT Time Warner Merger (PDF)

Recent negotiations to renew the North American Free Trade Agreement reached an impasse this past October, when the Trump administration put forward new rules of origin that Canada and Mexico have dismissed as unworkable and “insane,” holding that the administration’s position is inflexible. These concerns come at a time when many parties fear President Trump will follow through with his promise to pull the United States out of NAFTA.

Current NAFTA guidelines allow for tariff-free trade between Mexico, Canada, and the United States as long as 62.5% of all manufactured vehicle components are from the three members states. The administration’s recommended changes include increasing that number to 85% for NAFTA member states, with an added caveat that 50% of all those components come from the U.S. Consistent with campaign promises to bring back manufacturing jobs, the administration’s position looks to return jobs to the states by increasing the regulatory demands on NAFTA members.

The extent to which the administration’s proposed regulations would achieve this end, however, is heavily contested. Should automakers in Mexico and Canada fail to meet the new regulations, they would be subject to a 2.5% tariff on completed cars, which they might perceive as cheaper than the increased production costs that follow from the administrations U.S. centric policies. If that is the case, automakers might shift production from Mexico or Canada to other countries that would likewise be subject to the 2.5% tariff, albeit where other production costs might be cheaper. This strategy was possibly employed by Ford Motor Co. in a recent decision to move Focus production to China instead of Mexico.

The administration’s new regulations have also been met with considerable opposition from automotive industry groups, who contend that the current regulations are beneficial to the industry. One such group, Driving American Jobs, a coalition of major auto manufacturers, has decried the administration’s proposals, attributing much of the recent resurgence in the American automotive manufacturing industry to the success of NAFTA. Not all interested parties oppose the new regulations, however, as labor unions and blue collar workers, notably in states in which the President won the popular vote, support President Trump in denouncing NAFTA.

The administration’s approach is certainly no less frustrating for NAFTA Members than it is worrisome. It is not clear at present what the President’s ultimate goal with respect to NAFTA is; whether he intends for the new regulations to catalyze dissolution or whether the administration poses them in earnest remains to be seen.

Trump Administration’s NAFTA Rules for Cars that Run on Hot Air (PDF)

Uber has cleared the way for a multi-billion dollar investment by Softbank, a Japanese telecommunications company. SoftBank hopes to obtain 14% ownership by issuing a tender offer to current stockholders, and buying $1 billion in new shares issued by Uber.

SoftBank would agree to a deal only if Uber resolved some of its governance issues. Correspondingly, Uber’s board agreed to adopt a traditional one vote per share policy. This policy limits the power of Uber’s early investors – including its out-of-favor former CEO, Travis Kalanick – who held a ton of power in the company via “super voting rights.” In addition, Uber expanded its board of directors from 11 to 17, and brokered a deal for one of its influential shareholders to suspend a lawsuit against Kalanick.

Uber believes SoftBank’s investment will help it grow in emerging markets. SoftBank, which unconventionally invests in companies that compete in the same industry as part of its aggressive investing strategy, owns more than 30% of Ola. Uber and Ola are rivals in South Asia, but collectively have a 95% market share in India. SoftBank’s investment in Uber thus opens up the possibility of M&A activity. If permitted by India’s antitrust laws, such a deal will allow Uber to thrive in a market that has previously brought Uber its fair share of headaches. SoftBank also owns significant stakes in other ride-sharing giants, including Didi Chuxing (China), Grab (Southeast Asia), and 99 (Brazil).

Perhaps the biggest winners in the deal are Uber’s employees. Over the last year, employees have had to endure extensive turnover to the company’s C-suite, public relations crises, and increased competition from Lyft. The SoftBank deal gives employees a welcomed opportunity to cash-out their stock options at a high price.

The city of San Francisco will also benefit from SoftBank’s lucrative investment. Uber employees who cash-out will have earnings taxed at .711%, the city’s income tax. While employees of several tech companies in San Francisco are exempt from city income taxes, Uber employees are not eligible for the “Twitter tax break” because the company is not headquartered in the area of San Francisco where the city agreed to exempt certain companies from income taxes.

This is far from a done deal. SoftBank maintains that it has not yet decided whether it will invest in Uber. In addition, even if SoftBank does issue a tender offer, the deal can still fall through if not enough stockholders agree to sell. Nevertheless, a deal seems likely, and there are a lot of parties that stand to benefit from it.

SoftBank’s Potential Investment in Uber Outlook and Effects (PDF)

In light of Venezuela’s social and political unrest, bonds have plunged in value due to fear that the government will finally default on its bond payments. Venezuelan bonds have been popular amongst foreign investors due to the country’s oversees assets and stream of foreign exchange earnings. However, the country’s current state threatens their value, and increases the risk of owning these bonds.

The conditions for default have been developing quickly. Venezuela has missed about $350 million in interest payments over the past month, and defaulted on a power company’s bonds. The price of bonds has reached a low of 20 cents on the dollar.

These conditions create the ideal climate for funds, known as vulture investors, that specialize in the debts of near-bankrupt nations. These funds buy bonds from struggling countries at low rates and then pressure the countries through lengthy litigation into paying the bonds in full. Vulture investors have profited from past debt disasters, including the Argentina and Greece debt crisis. These vulture funds wait for the price of bonds to hit a certain price, usually 20 cents on the dollar, and then commit seriously to purchasing bonds.

The Maduro government is demanding that bond investors agree to a debt deal, but this will not be easy because of the country’s unpopular government and stalled legislatures. Furthermore, because of sanctions, Venezuela is unable to hire bankers and lawyers to help reach an agreement with creditors. However, investors hope that Venezuela’s wealth in natural resources will pull the country out of debt.

Vulture Funds Target Venezuela (PDF)

As the largest U.S. industrial group, General Electric has announced it will shrink to focus on its most profitable departments of power, aviation and healthcare, in an attempt to revive its stock which has fallen to its lowest price in over five years.

For several decades, GE has built itself into a conglomerate with departments in the media, energy, banking, aviation, railroad, marine engines and chemical industries. Thus, this is going to be a significant turning point in GE history. John Flannery, who took over as CEO on Aug. 1, said he was “looking for the soul of the company again” and would focus on “restoring the oxygen of cash and earnings to the company.”

Nowadays, investors on Wall Street are not in favor of conglomerates. They prefer to bet on focused businesses rather than a mixed portfolio. “Conglomerate discounts” often happen in companies involved in various businesses like GE.

Although the company may boost its sales and net income by combining uncorrelated business areas together, management and operations of the company may be inefficient without synergy. In addition, unlike a vertical or horizontal merger, when the company moves into diversified business sections, its ability and expertise in supervising different enterprises is necessary for its management.

Jeffrey Immelt, former CEO of GE, has made some expensive acquisitions in power businesses. As it turns out, they did not perform as well as expected in the slowing global energy market.

Apart from selling over $20 billion of its assets in the next year or two to increase its cash flow, GE also plans to cut dividends in half for its cost control and cutting policy. According to Howard Silverblatt, senior index analyst of S&P Dow Jones Indices, it is “the eighth biggest dividend cut in history among S&P 500 companies.” In addition, GE will lay off 25 percent of its corporate staff and cut its board members from 18 to 12.

GE to Shrink and Cut Costs (PDF)

On October 30, 2017, closing arguments were made in front of a California federal judge by the lawyers representing the parties in the Lawson v. GrubHub, Inc. case. The case is over whether GrubHub improperly classified their meal delivery drivers as independent contractors. The defendant, GrubHub, is an online company that connects diners with local restaurants and offers food-ordering delivery services. The plaintiff, Raef Lawson, is an ex-GruHub driver that alleges he was improperly classified as an independent contractor when he delivered food for GrubHub.

Under the Borello test, a court held that classifying workers as either 1099 contractor or a W-2 employee depends on a control test. The test analyzes the company’s regular business, the skill required, the payment method, and the supervision of the work performed. By classifying workers as independent contractors, GrubHub, along with other gig economy companies like Uber, Lyft, and Postmates, are able to cut overhead costs by not paying taxes, overtime, benefits, and workers’ compensation.

The trial hinged on the extent to which GrubHub had control over its drivers. The burden is on employers to demonstrate the proper classification of its workers. GrubHub argued that its drivers could log on and off when they wanted, accept shifts voluntarily, and had complete control over method of delivery. Moreover, GrubHub drivers could even choose to drive for competing companies at the same time.

According to Lawson, GrubHub’s policies required its drivers to pay for their car’s expenses, fuel, parking, and cellular data services. Because of these expenses, his weekly pay went below the state’s minimum wage, violating labor laws.

Lawson’s case is the first gig economy labor case to go to trial, and a judgment in Lawson’s favor could mean changes for the gig economy. Fearing potential litigation, many gig economies, such as Munchery and Instacart, have pre-emptively re-classified their workers from 1099 contractors to W-2 employees. One analysis estimated that for Uber to re-classify its drivers in California alone would cost over $200 million.

A judgment is expected in the coming weeks and the industry will be watching closely. When presiding Judge Jacqueline Corley was asked how she will make her decision, she answered, “The tricky part is trying to fit in this gig economy to existing labor rules. It’s a unique situation that’s hard to figure out.”

Closing Arguments Made at GrubHub’s Worker Classification Trial (PDF)