Posts

INVESTIG PHOTO

Schall Law Firm announces investigation into Tyme Technologies, Inc.

The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm, announces that it is investigating claims on behalf of investors of Tyme Technologies, Inc. (“Tyme” or “the Company”) (NASDAQ: TYME) for violations of §§10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the US Securities and Exchange Commission.

The investigation focuses on whether the Company issued false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose information pertinent to investors. Tyme reported the results of its open-label Phase 2 study for its drug candidate SM-88 on January 18, 2019. The Company reported positive results, stating SM-88 “improves survival” for late-stage pancreatic cancer patients. Despite this claim, the study did not include a control group, and the Company was comparing its results with historical control data. Based on this news, shares of Tyme fell by more than 35% on the same day.

If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss, please visit https://schallfirm.com/join-action-form/?slug=tyme-technologies-inc&id=1716

We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall, or Sherin Mahdavian, of the Schall Law Firm, 1880 Century Park East, Suite 404, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at 424-303-1964, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also reach us through the firm’s website at https://schallfirm.com/, or by email at [email protected].

The class in this case has not yet been certified, and until certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class member.

The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and specialises in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder rights litigation.

GG PHOTO

High Court blocks iPhone data breach class action against Google

The High Court has blocked a mass legal action against Google over claims that it collected sensitive personal data from more than four million iPhone users.

Mr Justice Warby, sitting in London, announced his decision on Monday.

The litigation was brought by campaign group Google You Owe Us, led by former Which? director Richard Lloyd.

The tech giant faced claims that it bypassed privacy settings on Apple iPhone handsets between August 2011 and February 2012 and used data to divide people into categories for advertisers.

The campaign group hoped to win at least £1 billion in compensation for an estimated 4.4 million users of the device in the UK.

At the first hearing of the case in London in May, lawyers for Mr Lloyd told the court that information collected by Google included racial or ethnic origin, physical and mental health, political affiliations or opinions, sexuality and sexual interests and social class.

They said information about an individual’s financial situation, shopping habits and their geographical location were also obtained.

Hugh Tomlinson QC, representing Mr Lloyd, said information was then “aggregated” and users were put into groups such as “football lovers” or “current affairs enthusiasts”.

These were then offered to subscribing advertisers to choose from when deciding who to direct their marketing to.

Mr Tomlinson said the data was gathered through “clandestine tracking and collation” of information relating to internet usage on iPhone users’ Safari browser – known as the “Safari Workaround”.

He told Mr Justice Warby the activity was exposed by a PhD researcher in 2012 and Google has already paid 39.5 million US dollars to settle claims in the United States.

Google argued that the type of “representative action” being brought against it by Mr Lloyd is unsuitable and should not go ahead.

Lawyers for the California-based company said there is no suggestion that the Safari Workaround resulted in any information being disclosed to third parties.

They also said it is not possible to identify those who may have been affected and the claim has no prospect of success.

ACQ PHOTO

ZoomInfo completes acquisition of technographics provider Datanyze

ZoomInfo, the leading growth acceleration platform for sales and marketing teams, has announced the acquisition of Datanyze, the world-wide leader in technographic data. Financial terms of the acquisition were undisclosed.

Datanyze, headquartered in San Mateo, California, uses machine learning and proprietary methodologies to capture the technologies that are being used or implemented by more than 35 million companies globally. By infusing this information into its growth acceleration platform, ZoomInfo will be able to supplement its unrivalled company and contact information with real-time alerts that enable sales and marketing professionals to sell based on customer technology decisions.

“Business data is rapidly changing and your data platforms must be built to adapt. ZoomInfo has the largest, most complete data set of companies and contacts and a goal to enable our customers to automate, process, curate, and present the data on-demand and in real-time. Delivering industry-leading technographics, the Datanyze technology will be a significant addition to help us deliver the right data, at the right time, to the right person,” Derek Schoettle, CEO, ZoomInfo, said.

Datanyze customers will continue to receive support for the Datanyze product offering. Ilya Semin, CEO, Datanyze, said, “I am thrilled to be joining ZoomInfo at this time of tremendous growth in the organization. Bringing together our two organizations is a perfect union, combining Datanyze’s real-time technographic data with ZoomInfo’s unparalleled – and the industry’s most current – company and contact data.”

With today’s incorporation of Datanyze and the recent addition of Y Labs, ZoomInfo has now increased to six major locations including an expanded headquarter location in Waltham (MA) and satellite offices in San Mateo (CA), Grand Rapid (MI), St Petersburg (Russia), Kazan (Russia), and Ra’anana (Israel).

ZoomInfo was recently named to the Inc. 5000 for the sixth time. The company has more than doubled its headcount in the last year and continues to expand in all areas as they increase their market share.

About ZoomInfo

Accelerate your growth with Zoom Information Inc. (ZoomInfo), an Inc. 5000 company. ZoomInfo’s Growth Acceleration Platform combines the world’s most comprehensive and searchable B2B contact database with integrated tools to help companies optimize sales and marketing effectiveness, jump-start growth, and maximize profitability. The continuously updated B2B data platform provides businesses access to direct-dial phone numbers, email addresses, and professional background information. For more information, please visit: www.zoominfo.com

Agric PHOTO

California agricultural law firm Saqui links with Dowling Aaron

The Saqui Law Group PC, which often presents continuing education seminars for Sonoma County Winegrowers, joined Dowling Aaron Incorporated in the of-counsel role.

The Saqui Law Group was established in 2007 to represent California growers, packers and shippers with their labor needs.

Dowling Aaron has represented clients in agribusiness and agricultural litigation including farmers, growers, packers, shippers, dairies, wineries, cooperatives, investors, lenders, processors, insurance providers and others involved in the food production industry.

A full merger of the two firms is set for 2019. Dowling Aaron will maintain offices in Fresno, Bakersfield, Visalia, Salinas and Sacramento.

BigSmall PHOTO

California partners are switching from BIG LAW to small law

Partners have long left large law firms to branch out on their own. But in a legal market increasingly under pressure from a variety of sources, including higher associate salaries, it seems that more and more California-based partners have recently left behind their practices at Am Law 200 firms to start their own shops.

Those that have picked up stakes for new endeavours include Michael Hassen, a former chair of the appellate practice at Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell, who in May formed Reallaw in Walnut Creek, California. John Cermak Jr., a former managing partner of the Los Angeles office at Baker & Hostetler, has launched local firm Cermak & Inglin with former Baker & Hostetler environmental partner Sonja Inglin. And Armen Zenjiryan, a former Jackson Lewis partner in Los Angeles, in June became the co-founder of Burbank, California-based Remedy Law Group. (Zenjiryan declined to comment about his new firm, while Hassen was unavailable by the time of this story to discuss his next enterprise.)

These break-off boutiques from Big Law are often specialized and frequently located in areas where a certain amount of flexibility, whether it be in real estate or hourly rates, is desirable.

“From a business perspective, I felt like it was a good time to start an environmental boutique,” said Cermak, when asked about his decision to leave Baker & Hostetler after more than a decade at the Am Law 100 firm.

Cermak joined Baker & Hostetler in 2007 as part of a mass lateral move from Jenkens & Gilchrist, where he was a member of the now-defunct firm’s board. Cermak cited rate pressure and conflicts with Baker & Hostetler’s other practices as the primary driver for his decision to start his own firm to cater to the needs of his various clients.

“My clients realized that they can get great quality lawyers at smaller firms, there is a lot of rate pressure for in-house counsels,” Cermak said. “We have a long-time relationship with these clients. We have been with them for almost 30 years.”

As clients become more careful about spending, Cermak said setting up his own shop allows him to offer more flexible rates. As associates at large firms are under increased pressure to keep up their billable hours, in part due to salary raises, Cermak noted that a boutique is better suited to training young lawyers interested in a specific practice, such as environmental law.

At the moment, Cermak’s two-partner firm has only one associate. The former Baker & Hostetler partner said he does plan to hire a few more contract lawyers or associates.

While flying solo might appeal to some large firm lawyers, there are also others that seek out a smaller firm atmosphere for the same benefits of flexibility and hands-on experience, but still want less risk.

George Borkowski, a former chair of intellectual property litigation at Venable, last month left his role as senior vice president of litigation and legal affairs at the Recording Industry Association of America to join Coblentz Patch Duffy & Bass as a partner in San Francisco.

“I think that a firm such as 84-lawyer Coblentz Patch is perfectly situated—it can be very flexible, it doesn’t have too much bureaucracy, it doesn’t charge ridiculously high hourly rates,” Borkowski said. “You get a lot more bang for your buck, you pay fees that are somewhat less, but you get representation that I think is even better than most of the big firms because you get individualized attention, you get partners paying attention to your cases.”

Prior to returning to California, Borkowski has spent the past four years at the RIAA, which paid him $380,097 in 2016-17, according to the most recent federal tax filing by the Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit. Before that, Borkowski spent nearly three years as a partner at Los Angeles-based Freeman, Freeman & Smiley.

He began his legal career in 1988 at Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp, where Borkowski was a founder and chair of the IP and technology group during his two decades at that Los Angeles-based firm. Borkowski said he missed being a litigator and that he is excited to help the midsized Coblentz Patch expand its IP litigation practice on the West Coast.

“We do get the job done successfully for clients and we do it in a way that doesn’t break the bank,” Borkowski added.

Bruce Isaacs, a former founding partner of Beverly Hills-based entertainment boutique Wyman & Isaacs who joined Davis Wright Tremaine in early 2015, has also recently left Big Law.

“The clients always want their bill to be smaller,” said Isaacs, now a mediator at Benchmark Resolution Group, which he joined in May after leaving Davis Wright.

For Isaacs, it was a desire to pursue a long-time career interest that spurred his decision to leave the firm for BRG.

“I am 61 years old, and it was time to do something I really felt like doing,” said the veteran litigator about his move to BRG, which was formed last year. Isaacs noted that the new outfit is focused on “figuring out how to solve problems and end litigation.”

BRG’s founding partners included a number of prominent former judges in the Los Angeles area. Isaacs said he felt honoured to become one of the 13 members of that group, which includes nine ex-judges and other experienced litigators.

“I think this company will grow, because I think a lot of the judges that retired are going to want to work here,” Isaacs said. “The retired judges and lawyers are extremely dedicated, they work very hard, and they read every word of every brief and exhibit.“

Cali new PHOTO

Why California’s new consumer privacy law won’t be GDPR 2.0

The consumer privacy law that California’s governor signed into law on June 28 is considered the strongest, most aggressive privacy protection measure in the U.S., according to legal experts.

The new California law, which takes effect on Jan. 1, 2020, will require that companies tell state residents what information the company is collecting and how it’s used. It also gives people options to ask the company to delete or stop selling that information. The law does not prevent companies from collecting people’s information or give people an option to ask a company to stop collecting their information, differentiating it from GDPR.

“The sweeping nature of this bill is really unprecedented in the privacy area, and its impacts are still far from known,” said Dan Jaffe, group evp for government relations at the Association of National Advertisers.

The law contains “broad sweeping definitions of personal information,” said Ron Camhi, managing partner at law firm Michelman & Robinson’s Los Angeles office and chair of its advertising and digital media industry group. That personal information includes standard categories like people’s names, email addresses and Social Security numbers. But it also covers unique personal identifiers: IP addresses; geolocation data; shopping, browsing and search histories; and consumer profiles that are based on inferences from personal information.

The inclusion of unique identifiers — which ad tech firms use to anonymously track people around the web — means that any ad tech firm storing tracking cookies on people’s devices will need to give people an option to ask the company to delete the information collected through those cookies and will also need to ensure that those cookies and any corresponding information aren’t exposed in a data breach, which would make the company subject to a class-action lawsuit.

On the other hand, the law includes a loophole for any personal information that is “de-identified or in the aggregate consumer information,” according to the law. If the personal information can’t be associated with a particular consumer, then it would be de-identified, said Camhi. But it’s not clear whether the types of identifiers that run the online advertising ecosystem are or are not subject to the law, said Mayer.

The law suggests that online tracking cookies and mobile advertising IDs, which are used to collect information about individual devices, may fall under its jurisdiction. However, digital advertising companies may argue that they meet the law’s exemption standard because they aggregate those identifiers into larger, anonymized audience pools.

“All of this is still in flux. But arguably, anonymized information doesn’t allow you to create that [consumer] profile, so that you can’t draw it to [an individual person]. With a cookie situation that’s tied to a device that’s tied to a person, that may not necessarily be the case,” said Donna Wilson, managing partner-elect at Manatt, Phelps & Phillips and chair of the law and consulting firm’s privacy and data security practice.

What’s more clear is that digital advertising companies shouldn’t take comfort that their practices would be exempt from the law. Even if a company claims that it has disassociated the information with an individual person, it will need to ensure that the disassociation cannot be undone and that the data is reconnected to the individual, said Camhi and Wilson.

A week after California’s governor signed the bill into law, many in the advertising industry are still scratching their heads over the possible loophole and defaulting to assuming that there is no loophole because “almost any kind of data connected to some other data is capable of being associated with somebody,” said Jaffe.

Ad tech firm Exponential Interactive buys data from third-party companies to use for ad targeting purposes. “But when we buy it, it is totally aggregated,” said Tim Sleath, the company’s vp of product management and data protection officer. However Exponential Interactive uses cookie IDs to be able to match the aggregated third-party data to its own audience pools in order to target people with ads without accessing the underlying data, such as people’s names or email addresses. That cookie-based matching process likely subjects the ad tech firm to needing to comply with the law, even if it were to somehow remove the cookie-based identifiers from the process.

“If you have a behavioral profile for someone, even if you strip the IP address and cookie ID, that behavioral profile, which I would classify as deidentified, remains personal information under this [law],” said Sleath.

Facebook and Google have already rolled out features required by the law, such privacy settings that categorize the information that the companies collect from people and tools for people to request that information be deleted. The companies claim that they don’t sell people’s information so they don’t need to give people a way to request that the companies stop selling their data. That would help to explain why Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg said the company supports the California privacy law that has been passed, though the company donated money to the organization opposing a similar ballot initiative.

“For the major online platforms, I think this law will have very little impact,” said Jonathan Mayer, assistant professor of computer science and public affairs at Princeton University and former chief technologist of the Federal Communications Commission.

There remains roughly 18 months until the law takes effect, and since the law was passed by the state legislature instead of by California voters, the details of the law can change before it is enacted. But before the industry can try to get California lawmakers to clarify, if not change, the specifics of the law, it will need to assess the impact of this initial version and identify what changes to request.

“The ANA has more than 2,000 members. We’ve gone out to our members asking how this will impact them. Clearly, we’ve not had time to get that input yet, and people are still trying to figure that out,” said Jaffe.