Monthly Archives: June 2021

In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court late last week barred the courthouse door to thousands of people who were wrongly marked as potential terrorists by credit giant TransUnion. The Courts analysis of their standing whether they were sufficiently injured to file a lawsuitreflects a nave view of the increasingly powerful role that personal data, and the private corporations that harvest and monetize it, play in everyday life. It also threatens Congressional efforts to protect our privacy and other intangible rights from predation by Facebook, Google and other tech giants.

Earlier this year, we filed an amicus brief, with our co-counsel at Hausfeld LLP, asking the Court to let all of the victims of corporate data abuses have their day in court.

TransUnion wrongly and negligently labelled approximately 8,000 people as potential terrorists in its databases. It also made that dangerous information available to businesses across the nation for purposes of making credit, employment, and other decisions. TransUnion then failed to provide the required statutory notice of the mistake. The Supreme Court held this was not a sufficiently concrete injury to allow these people to sue TransUnion in federal court for violating their privacy rights under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Instead, the Court granted standing only to the approximately 1,800 of these people whose information was actually transmitted to third parties.

The majority opinion, written by Justice Kavanaugh, fails to grapple with how consumer data is collected, analyzed, and used in modern society. It likened the gross negligence resulting in a database marking these people as terrorists to a letter in a drawer that is never sent. But the ongoing technological revolution is not at all like a single letter. It involves large and often interconnected set of corporate databases that collect and hold a huge amount of our personal informationboth by us and about us. Those information stores are then used to create inferences and analysis that carry tremendous and often new risks for us that can be difficult to even understand, much less trace. For example, consumers who are denied a mortgage, a job, or another life-altering opportunity based upon bad records in a database or inferences based upon those records will often be unable to track the harm back to the wrongdoing data broker. In fact, figuring out how decisions were made, much less finding the wrongdoer, has become increasingly difficult as an opaque archipelago of databases are linked and used to build and deploy machine learning systems that judge us and limit our opportunities.

This decision is especially disappointing after the Courts recent decisions, such as Riley and Carpenter, that demonstrated a deep understanding that new technology requires new approaches to privacy law.

This decision is especially disappointing after the Courts recent decisions, such as Riley and Carpenter, that demonstrated a deep understanding that new technology requires new approaches to privacy law. The Court concluded in these cases that when police collect and use more and more of our data, that fundamentally changed the inquiry about our Fourth Amendment right to privacy and the Court could not rigidly follow pre-digital cases. The same should be true when new technologies are used by private entities in ways that threaten our privacy.

The majoritys dismissal of Congressional decision-making is also extremely troubling. In 1970, at the dawn of the database era, Congress decided that consumers should have a cause of action based upon a credit reporting agency failing to take reasonable steps to ensure that the data they have is correct. Here, TransUnion broke this rule in an especially reckless way: it marked people as potential terrorists simply because they shared the same name as people on a terrorist watch list without checking middle names, birthdays, addresses, or other information that TransUnion itself undoubtedly already had. The potential harms this could cause are particularly obvious and frightening. Yet the Court decided that, despite Congress clear determination to grant us the right to a remedy, the Court could still bar the courthouse doors.

Justice Thomas wrote the principal dissent, joined by Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan. As Justice Kagan explained in an additional dissent, the ruling transforms standing law from a doctrine of judicial modesty into a tool of judicial aggrandizement. Indeed, Congress specifically recognized new harms and provided a new cause of action to enforce them, yet the Court nullified these democratically-enacted rights and remedies based on its crabbed view that the harms are not sufficiently concrete.

This could pose problems for a future Congress that wanted to get serious about recognizing and empowering us to seek accountability for the unique and new harms caused by modern data misuse practices, potentially including harms arising from decision-making based upon machine learning and artificial intelligence. Congress will need to make a record of the grievous injuries caused by out-of-control data processing by corporations who care more for their profits than our privacy and expressly tie whatever consumer protections it creates to those harms and be crystal clear about how those harms justify a private right of action.

The Courts opinion does provide some paths forward, however. Most importantly, the Court expressly confirmed that intangible harms can be sufficiently concrete to bring a lawsuit. Doing so, the Court rejected the cynical invitation from Facebook, Google, and tech industry trade groups to deny standing for all but those who suffered a physical or economic injury. Nonetheless, we anticipate that companies will try to use this new decision to block further privacy litigation. We will work to make sure that future courts dont overread this case.

The court also recognized that the risk of future harm could still be a basis for injunctive reliefso while you cannot seek damages, you dont have to wait until you are denied credit or a job or a home before seeking protection from a court from known bad data practices. Finally, as the dissent observed, the majoritys standing analysis only applies in federal court;state courts applying state laws can go much further in recognizing harms and adjudicating private causes of action because the federal "standing" doctrine does not apply. The good work being done to protect privacy in states across the country is now all-the-more important.

But, overall, this is a bad day for privacy. We have been cheered by the Supreme Courts increasing recognition, when ruling on law enforcement activity, of the perils of modern data collection practices and the vast difference between current and previous technologies. Yet now the Court has failed to recognize that Congress must have the power to proactively protect us from the risks created when private companies use modern databases to vacuum up our personal information, and use data-based decision-making to limit our access to lifes necessities. This decision is a big step backwards for empowering us to require accountability from todays personal data-hungry tech giants. Let's hope that it is merely an anomaly. We need a Supreme Court that understands and takes seriously the technology-fueled issues facing us in the digital age.

Link:
Supreme Court Says You Can't Sue the Corporation that Wrongly Marked You A Terrorist - EFF

LITTLE ROCK Arkansas Attorney General Leslie Rutledge announced today she will be hosting the 10th Annual Never Forgotten Arkansas Takes Action event on Thursday, July 22, 2021, at the Benton Event Center. Rutledges event consists of an all-day training session for law enforcement and attorneys, a family session, as well as a luncheon to recognize Arkansass missing. The event was established to raise awareness to the challenges associated with missing persons cases for families and law enforcement officials while also recognizing Arkansass missing children and adults. Registration is open for families, law enforcement and attorneys for the morning sessions. The luncheon ceremony is open to the public, but pre-registration is required which can be found here.We cannot rest easy until every family has answers and their loved ones are brought home, said Attorney General Rutledge. Never Forgotten Arkansas Takes Action has developed into an important platform to provide law enforcement and families of the missing with the necessary training, resources and support,The law enforcement training begins at 9 a.m. with Wisconsin Judge Mark McGinnis who will speak on Legal Issues in Missing Persons Cases and the Fourth Amendment. The afternoon will offer an overview of Amber Alerts, Silver Alerts and Endangered Missing Alerts by the Arkansas State Police.During the family session, which begins at 9:30 a.m., families will learn how to utilize social media, organize files and stay connected with Morgan Nick Foundation case managers and family members of long term cases. Open discussion will also be held with representatives from the Arkansas Crime Information Center, Arkansas Law Enforcement Training Academy, Arkansas State Crime Lab, Arkansas State Police, National Missing and Unidentified Persons System and the FBI.The luncheon ceremony will feature keynote speaker, former State Representative Rebecca Petty who has been personally impacted by the case of her missing daughter Andi, recognition of families and presentation of the Star of Excellence award. This program has been approved for 3.5 hours of Continuing Law Enforcement Standards Credit (CLEST) and Continuing Legal Education (CLE).Rutledge has led the charge in building stronger partnerships with stakeholders to educate, connect and provide outreach for missing persons in Arkansas. In 2021, a missing persons exhibit was on display at the State Capitol which will also be at the Never Forgotten Event before embarking on a statewide traveling exhibit at predetermined locations. In 2018, Rutledge released the first comprehensive resource guide for families of missing loved ones which is available to be downloaded or ordered for free at ArkansasAG.gov and NeverForgotten.ar.gov. Each week, Rutledge posts Missing Person Monday on social media highlighting a different missing person case.

More:
Rutledge to host tenth annual never forgotten event July 22 at the Benton Event Center - Newton County Times

Days after Gov. Ned Lamont signed legislation legalizing marijuana, some Danbury-area communities are taking a step back.

Newtown and Ridgefield plan to consider banning cannabis establishments, while Danbury looks to impose at least a temporary moratorium. Local police departments, meanwhile, are bracing for challenges, such as how to tell if someone is driving while high.

Danbury and Newtown officials say they arent saying no to cannabis establishments forever. Danbury officials say they want more time to decide how to regulate them or whether to prohibit them.

The best way to do that is to take a time out, said Sharon Calitro, the citys planning director.

Danbury took the same pause when Connecticut approved medical marijuana, but now allows these dispensaries and expects one to move to the city soon.

The stigma against pot has died down in recent years, said Carl Tirella, general manager of New York-based Acreage Holdings, which owns the medicinal dispensary moving to Danbury.

It has been amazing to watch the growth of the program from a few hundred patients to over 50,000 patients in just over seven years and with rec(reational weed) on the horizon, it shows Connecticut is continually open for growth and change, he said.

His companys Compassionate Care Center of Connecticut hopes to move from Bethel to Danbury by early August. The company is evaluating whether it would want to sell recreational marijuana, too, he said. Becoming a hybrid retailer comes with a $1 million fee.

The law goes into effect Thursday, with retail sales expected to begin in late 2022.

The Town of Prospects Planning and Zoning Commission already voted unanimously to ban cannabis establishments.

Newtown First Selectman Dan Rosenthal said hes fine with decriminalizing marijuana, but he doesnt want his town to be one of the first with recreational dispensaries. The Planning and Zoning Commissions public hearing on the issue is Thursday.

Its best to sit on the sidelines, see how it plays out, he said. If at some point in the future, the willingness is there to reconsider, then perhaps they do that.

Rosenthal and Ridgefield First Selectman Rudy Marconi said theyre worried about the message selling weed in town would send to young people. Pot is legal only for adults 21 and over.

Alcohol and vaping have been a problem among young people, Marconi said.

What I dont want to have happen is find ourselves in the same position with the use of weed or marijuana increasing and additional accidents for various reasons that have been experienced in some states that have passed it, said Marconi, who plans to recommend the Planning and Zoning Commission prohibit the sale of marijuana in town.

A 2019 study found marijuana use among youth may decline after its been legalized, while a 2020 study found minimal short-term effects of pot legalization on substance use among young people, with small declines in marijuana use and an increase in the likelihood of e-cigarette use.

The Danbury Zoning Commission will hold a public hearing on July 27 on the citys proposed temporary moratorium on applications, petitions and issuance of permits related to cannabis establishments. The commission will also consider amending the zoning regulations to include definitions related to cannabis.

The state will not begin issuing permits for recreational marijuana retailers until 2022, but businesses could still try to apply beforehand to open a dispensary in Danbury, Calitro said.

We have to get ahead of the curve, she said.

Existing regulations permit two medical marijuana dispensaries in the city, she said. One has already been approved and would not be affected, but new applications could not be submitted under the moratorium.

The moratorium would be in effect for a year at most, less if the city develops regulations on marijuana use sooner, she said.

The city will need to consider what affect weed establishments would have on certain areas in the city and the already permitted uses in those zones, Calitro said.

On the other hand, there is potential revenue to be had, she said. We have to weigh both things.

Newtowns existing regulations allow medical marijuana dispensaries, although the town does not have any, said George Benson, director of planning. The proposal would ban recreational and medicinal marijuana establishments.

Ridgefield prohibits medical marijuana facilities already, so the town must see how that ban is affected by the new law, said Richard Baldelli planning and zoning director and zoning enforcement.

The Brookfield Zoning Commission is expected to discuss how to handle the new law, said Nina Mack, land use administrative assistant. Existing regulations allow medical marijuana dispensaries with special permit approval, but they are not allowed to sell recreational weed without additional approval from the town.

Bethels existing zoning regulations do not permit cannabis to be grown or sold in town. Officials plan to discuss what to do now with legal counsel, said Beth Cavagna, town planner.

Bethel changed its zoning regulations to ban pot in 2014 after approving a medical marijuana dispensary, Compassionate Care Center of Connecticut the one moving to Danbury. Approval of that dispensary had been contentious at that time, but the new regulations did not affect it, Cavagna said.

Since then, the publics views on pot have changed, and the fears residents had over the dispensary did not play out, she said.

Weve never had issues over there, she said.

The dispensary is moving to Danbury because it needs a bigger space, Tirella said.

Some local police chiefs are worried the new law will make activities like traffic stops more difficult.

Redding Chief Mark ODonnell said police should have been better consulted on the law.

Im just dead set against it, he said.

Few officers in the area are trained to identify whether someone is driving while high on drugs, chiefs said.

It just hasnt been something thats been necessary by and large for quite some time, Danbury Chief Patrick Ridenhour said.

Its harder to test for marijuana than it is for alcohol. Officers must get trained as drug recognition experts, a lengthy, expensive process, Newtown Chief James Viadero said. Grants may be available to do so, he said.

Two officers in Newtown are trained as these experts, which is more than some departments have, he said. When police dont have one of these experts on duty, they call in officers from nearby departments, Viadero said.

Ridenhour said hes not sure whether any Danbury officers are trained as drug recognition experts maybe one is but more will need to be.

Well manage, Ridenhour said. We have to do everything we can for the safety of our residents and citizens and our visitors.

Cops can learn the law, but telling K-9s that weed is legal is harder. Police dogs cannot differentiate between pot and other drugs and could prompt an officer to search someone with a legal amount of weed, Viadero said. That could lead to lawsuits over claims of illegal search and seizure.

There is a possible Fourth Amendment issue, Viadero said. Were going to have to work through that.

Departments expect to get more guidance from the state Police Officers Standards and Training Council and will get feedback from officers in other states where marijuana has been legal.

Municipal employees, including cops, could still get in trouble for smoking pot.

Ridgefield plans to create a new policy based on the law, Marconi said. ODonnell is reminding his officers, too.

Its still a federal crime, ODonnell said. Police officers cant smoke marijuana regardless of if its legal here or not...Not that I worry about our personnel. Theyre all pretty good.

Reporters Alyssa Seidman and Shayla Colon contributed to this report.

See the original post:
Weed is legal in CT, but some in Danbury area don't want it sold in their towns. - Danbury News Times

Jun 22, 2021 12:12 PMET

Legal Newswire POWERED BY LAW.COM

Centrus Energy Corp. announced the results of its 2021 annual meeting of stockholders held onJune 16, 2021. As ofApril 19, 2021, the meeting's record date, there were 12,918,602 shares of the Company's Class A common stock outstanding, each entitled to one vote, and approximately 79.8 percent of those shares were represented at the annual meeting.

The Company's stockholders passed all five proposals, including electing the eight director nominees for a term of one year; approving the Section 382 Rights Agreement, as amended; approving the 2014 Equity Incentive Plan, as amended and restated; approving, on an advisory basis, the Company's 2020 executive compensation (i.e., "say on pay"); and ratifying the appointment of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP as the Company's independent auditors for 2021.

Stockholders reelected W.Thomas Jagodinski,Tina W. Jonas,William J. Madia,Daniel B. Poneman,Neil S. Subin, andMikel H. Williamsto the Board of Directors, and newly electedKirkland H. DonaldandBradley J. Sawatzketo the Board of Directors.

Kirkland H. Donaldserved as a nuclear trained submarine officer for 37 years, achieving the rank of Admiral. His last assignment in theNavywas a successful eight-year term as the Director, Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program. This is a dual agency program responsible to the United States Departments of Defense and Energy for the safe and effective operation of all nuclear-powered warships and supporting infrastructure. The program is recognized worldwide for excellence in reactor safety and reliability. Following retirement in 2013, he was the President and Chief Executive Officer of Systems Planning and Analysis, Inc., until 2015. His public board service includes Entergy Corporation (NYSE:ETR), where he serves on the Finance Committee and is Chairman of the Nuclear Committee. He supports the Audit Committee on matters pertaining to cybersecurity. He also serves as Chairman of the Board for Huntington Ingalls Industries, Inc. (NYSE:HII) and is a member of the Finance and Cybersecurity Committees. Additionally, Admiral Donald serves on the board of the non-profit, Battelle, and the privately held CyberCore Technologies. Admiral Donald advises the Australian government on matters pertaining to submarine programs. Admiral Donald graduated from theUnited States Naval Academywith a Bachelor of Science in Ocean Engineering.

Bradley J. Sawatzkewas appointed Chief Executive Officer of Energy Northwest (EN) inApril 2018. He previously served as Chief Operating Officer/Chief Nuclear Officer, beginning inDecember 2014, with responsibility for all EN generating units. He joined Energy Northwest as vice president of Nuclear Generation/Chief Nuclear Officer inDecember 2010. Mr. Sawatzke also serves on the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations board of directors and accrediting board, Association of Washington Business executive committee, Nuclear Energy Institute board of directors, and the Tri-City Development Council (serving the Pacific Northwest) executive committee. Mr. Sawatzke holds a Bachelor of Science and Applied Physics fromWinona State Universityand is a graduate of the Harvard Advanced Management Program.

The Company also announced today that after obtaining the approval of stockholders at it 2021 annual meeting, it had entered into the fourth amendment to the Company's Section 382 Rights Agreement (the "Rights Plan") designed to preserve the Company's substantial tax assets associated with net operating loss carryforwards ("NOLs") under Section 382 of the Internal Revenue Code ("Section 382"). The fourth amendment extends the Rights Plan throughJune 30, 2023. The Rights Plan is similar to plans adopted by other public companies with significant NOLs.

Pursuant to U.S. federal income tax rules, the Company's use of certain tax assets could be substantially limited if the Company experiences an "ownership change" (as defined in Section 382). In general, an ownership change occurs if the ownership of the Company's stock by "5 percent stockholders" increases by more than 50 percent over the lowest percentage owned by such stockholders at any time during the prior three years on a rolling basis.

For additional details regarding the amendment to the Rights Plan, please see the Company's forthcoming Current Report on Form 8-K and amendment to Registration Statement on Form 8-A to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

About Centrus Energy

Centrus Energy is a trusted supplier of nuclear fuel and services for the nuclear power industry. Centrus provides value to its utility customers through the reliability and diversity of its supply sources helping them meet the growing need for clean, affordable, carbon-free electricity. Since 1998, the Company has provided its utility customers with more than 1,750 reactor years of fuel, which is equivalent to 7 billion tons of coal. With world-class technical and engineering capabilities, Centrus is also advancing the next generation of centrifuge technologies so that America can restore its domestic uranium enrichment capability in the future. Find out more atwww.centrusenergy.com.

Contacts:

Investors:Dan Leistikow(301) 564-3399 or[emailprotected]Media:Lindsey Geisler(301) 564-3392 or[emailprotected]

URL : http://www.centrusenergy.com.

Tags: Wire, Legal Newswire, United States, English

Read more:
Centrus Energy Corp. Reports Results of Annual Stockholder Meeting and Announces Extension of Section 382 Rights Agreement - Law.com