McBride Law Blog


Archive for for May, 2016

Employee or Independent Contractor? That Is the Question (Part II)

May 5, 2016

This is the second in a two-part blog on Cotter v. Lyft, a California case involving misclassification of drivers.  Read about the “whys” of the case in our first post, Employee or Independent Contractor? That Is the Question.

In the settlement agreement, Lyft agreed to pay more than $12 million ($12,250,000 to be exact, for all monetary benefits and payments to the settlement class, fees and expenses, taxes, and so forth), as well as revise its terms of service with drivers, including the following:

  • Lyft will modify the at-will termination provisions in its terms of service to remove Lyft’s ability to deactivate a driver’s account for any reason and to replace those provisions with language detailing specific actions that will constitute a breach of contract by a driver and/or result in termination of the driver’s terms of service;
  • Lyft will modify the arbitration provision in its terms of service to state explicitly that Lyft will pay for the arbitration fees and costs for claims brought by either party based on an alleged employment relationship between Lyft and a driver, Lyft’s deactivation of a driver’s account, termination provisions, or fares or hourly rates;
  • Lyft will create a “favorite driver” option that results in some benefit to drivers who Lyft passengers designate as a “favorite”; and
  • Lyft will modify its smartphone app to provide drivers with additional information about a potential Lyft passenger prior to a driver accepting any ride request from the passenger.
Read the rest

New York Law Update: When Is a Corporate Officer Liable for the Acts of the Corporation? (Part II)

May 3, 2016

Public Sector Pension Investment Board (“PSP”) was a Canadian corporation that invested the pension assets of various Canadian public employees.[1]  Between 2012 and 2013, PSP invested with investment advisor Saba Capital Management, L.P. (“Saba”).  At some point, PSP experienced losses and exercised its redemption right—that’s when an investor can require a company to repurchase shares under specified terms.  Saba calculated the redemption price.  PSP contested the value of certain bonds.  Saba then used a different pricing method to mark the bonds up to higher prices, even though, according to PSP, nothing had changed in the markets since PSP’s redemption so as to justify an adjustment. … Read the rest

All postings are intended to be planning tools to familiarize readers with some of the high-level issues discussed therein. No posting is intended to be a comprehensive discussion and additional details should be discussed with your transaction planners including attorneys, accountants, consultants, bankers and other business planners who can provide advice for your circumstances. This article should not be treated as legal advice to any person or entity.