Preview Newsletter
Legal News Report 2-19-2016
-
Apple Privacy Fight Escalates State and Local Cases
Feb 18, 2016 | Wall Street Journal
By Nicole Hong and Pervaiz Shallwani
State and local law-enforcement authorities are looking to follow the lead of the Federal Bureau of Investigation in its standoff with Apple Inc. over access to the contents of a terror suspect’s smartphone. -
Marvell to Pay $750 Million in Settlement With Carnegie Mellon
Feb 17, 2016 | Wall Street Journal
By Don Clark
Marvell Technology Group Ltd. has agreed to pay Carnegie Mellon University $750 million to settle a closely watched patent dispute. The agreement removes a long-standing cloud over the Silicon Valley semiconductor maker, which has also been grappling with a board probe of its accounting as well as inquiries by the Securities and Exchange Commission and U.S. attorney’s office. -
Prosecutors Have Deal With Second Dewey & LeBoeuf Figure
Feb 16, 2016 | New York Times
By Matthew Goldstein
The criminal case arising from the collapse of the once-prominent law firm Dewey & LeBoeuf has been cut in half, with Manhattan prosecutors agreeing to a deferred prosecution agreement with another of the four original defendants. Prosecutors announced the agreement with Zachary Warren, a 31-year-old lawyer, during a court hearing on Tuesday afternoon that came just weeks before he was to go on trial in New York State Supreme Court in Manhattan. -
SEC Wraps Up Investigation Into Caterpillar Replacement Parts Business
Feb 16, 2016 | Wall Street Journal
By Bob Tita and Richard Rubin
The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has wrapped up its investigation of Caterpillar Inc.’s replacement parts business, but probes by a federal grand jury and the Internal Revenue Service continue, the construction equipment maker said on Tuesday in a securities filing. -
Is Sports Betting About To Become Legal Outside Of Nevada?
Feb 15, 2016 | Forbes
By Darren Heitner
The State of New Jersey has fought for years to establish a sports betting scheme that would allow it to bring in more money for its troubled budget and provide a boost to its struggling casino industry. Each effort has been shot down, with the NCAA and the “Big Four” American professional sports leagues (NFL, MLB, NHL and NBA) claiming that allowing New Jersey such an exception would be a blatant violation of the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act of 1992 (“PASPA”), which bans states from offering any form of sports betting to individuals within their borders. The one exception among the U.S. states that is allowed a sweeping form of sports betting is Nevada, as it was grandfathered in when PASPA was passed. -
University of Missouri Seeking Legal Opinion on Graduate Student Union Rights
Feb 10, 2016 | Columbia Daily Tribune
By Rudi Keller
The effort to organize a graduate student employee union at the University of Missouri faces an uncertain future because the school is unsure about student workers’ legal status and whether they have a right to organize, interim President Mike Middleton said in a news release issued Wednesday.The release, issued after an unpublicized meeting between administrators and representatives of the Coalition for Graduate Workers and the National Education Association, reported that the university is examining the legal issues involved.
Legal News
-
Apple Privacy Fight Escalates State and Local Cases
Feb 18, 2016 | Wall Street Journal
By Nicole Hong and Pervaiz Shallwani
State and local law-enforcement authorities are looking to follow the lead of the Federal Bureau of Investigation in its standoff with Apple Inc. over access to the contents of a terror suspect’s smartphone.
Earlier this week, a federal magistrate judge in California ordered Apple to help the government unlock a passcode on the phone used by one of the suspects in the attack late last year in San Bernardino, Calif., which killed 14 people. Apple has said it would fight the judge’s order.
On Thursday, Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance said his office is in the process of determining which cases involving encrypted smartphones they should bring before a New York state judge for a similar review.
Mr. Vance called the Apple case “the most visible example of how Silicon Valley’s decisions are thwarting criminal investigations and impeding public safety.” Other district attorneys may be following Mr. Vance’s moves.
Jake Wark, a spokesman for the Suffolk County district attorney’s office in Boston, said that although the office hasn’t yet taken steps to bring a specific case for judicial review, “We can’t rule that out. It may be a question of finding the right case.”
The fight between Washington and Silicon Valley over access to a terrorist’s smartphone is exposing law enforcement’s long-simmering concerns over the challenges posed by encryption during investigations.
Federal and local law-enforcement officials are increasingly voicing frustration with encrypted smartphones, which they say provide a haven for criminals and hinder investigations by keeping potentially valuable evidence out of reach.
The battle over encrypted smartphones is part of a broader debate that dates back over a decade. Following the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, Congress won broad support to pass the USA Patriot Act, which became the legal underpinning for roving wiretaps on terrorism suspects and bulk collection of phone records by the National Security Agency.
Over time, however, concerns about privacy and civil liberties escalated, reaching an apex following the 2013 disclosures of government surveillance by former national-security contractor Edward Snowden. Last June, Congress approved a new bill called the USA Freedom Act, which curbed the government’s spying powers and reined in the NSA’s bulk collection.
Moves by the telecom industry to address privacy concerns, especially the creation of stronger encryption on devices, have sparked outrage from law enforcement.
“There is not an investigation today at the local, state or federal level that doesn’t touch a cyber platform,” said Don Mihalek, who represents Secret Service members in the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association. “Encryption has made it impossible now for law enforcement to do their jobs.”
Apple’s defiance, meanwhile, is garnering support from privacy advocates who say complying with the order could hurt the personal privacy of Americans and make smartphone users more vulnerable to hacks.
“This case is not about that one phone,” said Alex Abdo, a staff attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union. “This case is about the government trying to establish an illegal precedent that it can force a U.S. company to hack its users’ devices.”
Supporters of Apple have said that giving the government even limited access to encrypted iPhones and similar devices will just spur criminals to communicate on other encrypted platforms.
Federal Bureau of Investigation Director James Comey has said that terrorists made a more concerted effort after the Snowden revelations to shield their communications on encrypted devices.
Since September 2014, when Apple began encrypting its new phones by default, approximately 25% of the 670 Apple devices (with the iOS 8 operating system or higher) examined by the Manhattan district attorney office’s cybercrime lab were encrypted and not accessible, Mr. Vance said Thursday.
In a recent speech, Mr. Comey said encryption hindered the investigation into the attack last May of people at an exhibit featuring cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad in Garland, Texas, where the two shooters were both killed after they opened fire.
The morning of the attack, one of the shooters exchanged 109 messages with a known terrorist overseas using an encrypted mobile messaging app, Mr. Comey said. The terrorist group Islamic State has claimed responsibility for the Texas shooting.
“All the judicial orders in the world are not going to tell us what they said that morning,” Mr. Comey said.
Although encryption in terrorism investigations has gained the most attention, officials say the issue now has a nexus to all sorts of crimes, including drug trafficking, kidnappings and child pornography.
In New York, officials are struggling to access an encrypted iPhone 5 used by an associate during a shooting in the Bronx two weeks ago that injured two police officers. New York Police Department Commissioner William Bratton said Thursday that the encrypted iPhone was “impeding” the case from going forward.
Mr. Bratton said fixing the issue is going to require more significant rulings by the courts, including likely the Supreme Court, and legislation from Congress and state legislatures. He said both sides were early on in the process.
“The Constitution guarantees no absolute right to privacy,” Mr. Bratton said. “It guards against unreasonable search and seizure. How is what we are talking at all unreasonable?”
Local law enforcement in Louisiana say an encrypted smartphone may be the last lead for solving the murder of Brittany Mills, a 28-year-old who was shot to death last April.
In a typical investigation with an encrypted phone, investigators either try to ask the iPhone user to give up the passcode or search for any data in the user’s cloud, according to Hillar Moore, the district attorney in Baton Rouge, La. Neither option was available in Ms. Mills’s case.
Mr. Moore said he flew to Washington about two weeks ago to meet with Louisiana’s delegates in the House and Senate and discuss this case, as well as the broader challenge of encryption.
“The frustrating part about this is the bad guys know that no one can get in beyond search warrants,” Mr. Moore said. “They brag that cops can’t touch their phones. They’re using the phone as a shield to allow them to deal drugs, traffic women and threaten national security.”
-
Marvell to Pay $750 Million in Settlement With Carnegie Mellon
Feb 17, 2016 | Wall Street Journal
By Don Clark
Marvell Technology Group Ltd. has agreed to pay Carnegie Mellon University $750 million to settle a closely watched patent dispute.
The agreement removes a long-standing cloud over the Silicon Valley semiconductor maker, which has also been grappling with a board probe of its accounting as well as inquiries by the Securities and Exchange Commission and U.S. attorney’s office.
Marvell’s stock jumped 6% in after-hours trading following the announcement.
Carnegie Mellon first sued the company for infringing its patents in 2009. Marvell was found guilty in December 2012 by a federal jury, which set $1.17 billion in damages.
A federal judge increased the award to $1.54 billion, reflecting an extension of the period covered by the award and a finding that Marvell willfully infringed patents related to computer disk drives.
In August of 2015, Marvell persuaded a federal appeals court to reverse most of that award, but the court affirmed that Marvell had infringed the two patents at issue.
The settlement announced Wednesday resolves all pending appeals.
Marvell added that its cash and short-term investments exceeded $2.3 billion. Marvell previously had recorded about $388 million for litigation reserves in fiscal 2016 related to Carnegie Mellon.
Subra Suresh, the university’s president, said a substantial share of the settlement’s proceeds will go to José Moura and Aleksandar Kavcic, inventors of technology at issue in the case. After those payments, the university will receive about $250 million, he said.
A committee has been established to help the university decide how to use the funds to aid students.
Carnegie Mellon’s suit raised opposition from high-tech companies that include Microsoft Corp., Google Inc., Hewlett-Packard Co., Dell Inc. and Broadcom Corp., which filed court papers attacking the size of the damages award.
A key issue in the case was whether royalty payments ordered by a U.S. court should cover sales of products sold outside the country, as the jury concluded. Marvell and its supporters argued that the royalties should apply only to products sold in the U.S.
The appeals court struck down the finding of willful infringement while affirming the royalty fee set by the jury of 50 cents for each chip Marvell sold. It agreed with the companies, however, that the royalties should cover only Marvell chips that were imported or sold into the U.S.
Based on the jury’s finding of the number of chips imported, the court set the damage award at $278.4 million. But it concluded that a new trial was needed to settle the correct sale location of some chips.
-
Prosecutors Have Deal With Second Dewey & LeBoeuf Figure
Feb 16, 2016 | New York Times
By Matthew Goldstein
The criminal case arising from the collapse of the once-prominent law firm Dewey & LeBoeuf has been cut in half, with Manhattan prosecutors agreeing to a deferred prosecution agreement with another of the four original defendants.
Prosecutors announced the agreement with Zachary Warren, a 31-year-old lawyer, during a court hearing on Tuesday afternoon that came just weeks before he was to go on trial in New York State Supreme Court in Manhattan.
Mr. Warren will be required to perform 350 hours of community service as part of the one-year agreement.
Last month, prosecutors working for Cyrus R. Vance Jr., the Manhattan district attorney, reached a similar deal with Steven H. Davis, the former chairman of Dewey. Mr. Vance’s prosecutors agreed to the deferred agreement with Mr. Davis after a jury deadlocked on dozens of charges against him and two other former executives at the law firm, Stephen DiCarmine and Joel Sanders.
The hung jury in their trial was a blow to Mr. Vance and his prosecutorial team, which had said the three men were the architects of a huge accounting fraud that enabled Dewey to defraud its lenders and creditors during much of the financial crisis.
Mr. Warren, who was a low-level employee at Dewey and not yet a lawyer at the time the firm collapsed in spring 2012, early on had his trial separated from that of the three former executives. His scheduled trial in March was seen as another test of the strength of the prosecution’s case in the planned retrial of Mr. DiCarmine, 59, and Mr. Sanders, 57, in September.
The state judge overseeing the Dewey criminal proceedings, Justice Robert M. Stolz, has indicated he may rule next week on motions by lawyers for Mr. DiCarmine, the firm’s former executive director, and Mr. Sanders, its former chief financial officer, to dismiss some of the grand larceny charges still pending against them.
A deferred prosecution agreement typically calls for the charges against someone to be dismissed after a period of time if that person does not violate the deal or commit other crimes.
The deal with Mr. Davis was much tougher. That agreement runs for five years and Mr. Davis is not permitted to practice law in New York during that time.
The agreement with Mr. Warren, who is currently working for a small law firm in Pittsburgh, does not come as a complete surprise after the hung jury and the deferred prosecution given to Mr. Davis. The decision by prosecutors to indict Mr. Warren, who was a client relations manager at the 1,300-lawyer firm, was criticized by some in the New York legal community as a heavy-handed move by Mr. Vance’s office.
After leaving Dewey, Mr. Warren went on to graduate from the law school of Georgetown University and clerk for a federal judge. He is to begin working as a lawyer with Williams & Connolly, a large Washington-based law firm, in the fall.
“We are deeply pleased that the district attorney’s office has decided to dismiss the charges,” said Paul Shechtman and William Murphy, the lawyers representing Mr. Warren, in a statement.
Prosecutors have said that Mr. Warren played a pivotal role in the Dewey accounting scandal because he attended a steak dinner at Del Frisco’s in Midtown Manhattan in December 2008, when Mr. Sanders and Frank Canellas, the firm’s former finance director, discussed ways to overcome a shortfall of more than $50 million in the firm’s net income.
Mr. Vance’s prosecutorial team has said that at that dinner, a multiyear scheme began to make Dewey look more profitable than it was to bank lenders and insurance companies that invested in debt offerings by the law firm.
Joan Vollero, a spokeswoman for Mr. Vance, said in a statement, “The deferred prosecution agreement is unrelated to the strength of the case.” She added that prosecutors “are confident that, had this case proceeded to trial, we would have met our burden of proof.”
Neither Mr. Davis nor Mr. Warren is expected to testify at the coming trial of Mr. DiCarmine and Mr. Sanders.
Both Mr. DiCarmine and Mr. Sanders rejected plea deals that would have required them to plead guilty to at least one felony charge. Mr. Sanders also would have had to serve a prison term as part of his plea deal, with Mr. DiCarmine being sentenced to community service.
-
SEC Wraps Up Investigation Into Caterpillar Replacement Parts Business
Feb 16, 2016 | Wall Street Journal
By Bob Tita and Richard Rubin
The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has wrapped up its investigation of Caterpillar Inc.’s replacement parts business, but probes by a federal grand jury and the Internal Revenue Service continue, the construction equipment maker said on Tuesday in a securities filing.
The Peoria, Ill.,-based heavy-equipment maker said the SEC notified the company in December that it had concluded its investigation without recommending a penalty but offered no additional details about the agency’s findings.
A spokeswoman for Caterpillar declined to comment on the SEC’s decision or other investigations still under way.
The SEC began looking into a Caterpillar-created subsidiary in Switzerland, known as CSARL, in September 2014, after a U.S. Senate subcommittee described the unit as part of a strategy by Caterpillar to reduce its U.S. taxes from sales of replacement parts for equipment outside of the U.S.
The report by the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations said Caterpillar’s U.S. operations bought parts from outside suppliers and then resold them to independent dealers overseas. But profit from the sales was assigned to CSARL in Switzerland, effectively eliminating Caterpillar’s U.S. operations from the transactions and lowering the company’s U.S. taxes, according to the report.
The report said Caterpillar saved at least $2.4 billion in taxes since the strategy was developed in the late 1990s.
Based on an examination of Caterpillar’s tax returns for 2007 through 2009, the IRS proposed tax increases and penalties of about $1 billion, Caterpillar said. If the IRS prevails, the ultimate tax liability could be much higher because Caterpillar continued those practices after 2009. Caterpillar said it is “vigorously contesting” the proposed amount through the IRS’ appeals process.
In a separate, unrelated dispute, the IRS last year disallowed about $125 million of foreign tax credits Caterpillar said arose from certain financings. Caterpillar recorded a net charge of $42 million in the third quarter of last year to cover unrecognized tax benefits totaling $68 million, which was partially offset by $26 million of tax benefits from certain refund claims.
Caterpillar reiterated in its latest filing that it did nothing illegal in the structuring of its foreign subsidiary and “complied with applicable tax laws and did not violate judicial doctrines.” The judicial economic substance doctrine says that corporate tax-avoidance deals must include business purposes beyond simply reducing taxes.
“The purchase of parts by CSARL from unrelated parties and the subsequent sale of those parts to unrelated dealers outside the United States have substantial legal, commercial, and economic consequences for the parties involved.” the company said in its filing.
Caterpillar said it continues to cooperate with a separate investigation by the U.S. District Court for Central Illinois after receiving subpoenas last year for information about sales of replacement parts, subsidiaries based outside the U.S. and dividend distribution by overseas subsidiaries.
The company repeated its prediction from its last update on the case this past autumn that the outcome of the court’s grand jury probe “will not have a material adverse effect on the company’s consolidated results of operations, financial position or liquidity.”
-
Is Sports Betting About To Become Legal Outside Of Nevada?
Feb 15, 2016 | Forbes
By Darren Heitner
The State of New Jersey has fought for years to establish a sports betting scheme that would allow it to bring in more money for its troubled budget and provide a boost to its struggling casino industry. Each effort has been shot down, with the NCAA and the “Big Four” American professional sports leagues (NFL, MLB, NHL and NBA) claiming that allowing New Jersey such an exception would be a blatant violation of the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act of 1992 (“PASPA”), which bans states from offering any form of sports betting to individuals within their borders. The one exception among the U.S. states that is allowed a sweeping form of sports betting is Nevada, as it was grandfathered in when PASPA was passed.
There may finally be hope for New Jersey and others states that seek to implement a sports wagering system. This Wednesday, February 17, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals will rehear New Jersey’s case as to why it believes it should be able to permit casinos and racetracks within the state to offer sports betting at such venues. A majority of judges in the Third Circuit were required to vote for a rehearing in order for it to be granted, which is a promising sign for New Jersey in its ongoing quest to essentially circumvent PASPA.
Why is the Third Circuit’s rehearing so important?
Rehearings are extremely rare; circuit courts of appeal are reluctant to grant such requests. By way of example, in 2006 a total of 1,028 motions for rehearing were filed in the Fourth District Court of Appeals and only twenty-one of them were granted. That makes the granting of New Jersey’s case a special exception to the rule and may be read as a positive sign as to the likelihood of success on the merits of the state’s argument.
“It’s huge,” said New Jersey Senator Raymond Lesniak when the rehearing was initially announced. ”Chances are, they wouldn’t have vacated the ruling if they were only going to later on confirm it.”
While New Jersey has certainly gained an edge over its prior position by way of receiving approval for a rehearing, it is not case closed for the state. It still must prove that the prior decisions were wrong and that New Jersey should be entitled to enact the sports betting system it selected in the past.
“We are glad that the ruling – which robbed New Jersey of the opportunity to benefit from the billion-dollar sports betting industry – will be reconsidered and heard by the full court,” said Congressmen Frank Pallone, Jr. and Frank LoBiondo of New Jersey in October 2015. “Not only do the citizens of New Jersey overwhelmingly support legalized sports betting and the revenue that would come to the state with it, but existing federal law picks winners and losers, and is unconstitutional and arbitrary. We remain committed to seeing sports betting become legal in New Jersey, and this reconsideration is a positive and important development.”
How will the rehearing work?
New Jersey’s rehearing on its sports betting plan will require that the court sits “en banc.” That is a Latin phrase meaning that all judges of the Third Circuit will participate in the rehearing, which is atypical, as standard Third Circuit decisions are provided by a panel of three judges.
There will be a total of twelve judges participating on Wednesday. Some of the judges have been involved in this case the past, either siding with the State of New Jersey or the NCAA and professional sports leagues in their efforts to keep sports betting banned.
Importantly, the en banc court’s decision will carry the day. The panel’s decision, which ruled against the State of New Jersey, was vacated when the en banc rehearing was granted. It is as though the prior decision of the court never existed.
If the en banc court of twelve judges vote in a 6-6 tie, then the district court’s original ruling will be reinstated. Thus, the State of New Jersey wants a 7-5 result in its favor, or better.
What is at issue?
This is New Jersey’s second major attempt to allow for sports betting within its borders. The first time around, PASPA’s constitutionality was challenged as a violation of states’ rights. New Jersey lost in a 2-1 decision, which indicated that the state is not prohibited from repealing its own ban on sports wagering under PASPA.
Thus, New Jersey repealed its own sports betting ban to the extent that it would only allow for casinos and racetracks to accept sports wagers. The state was told again, in a 2-1 decision, that its plan was unlawful. The court did not view New Jersey’s plan as a repeal, but instead deemed it to be a wrongful authorization for select entitles to be involved in sports betting.
The real issue is reconciling the two decisions, which may appear to contradict each other. The first loss for New Jersey indicated that the state could repeal a ban on sports betting, but the second loss seems to state that it cannot be done on a preferential basis. What an approved system would look like and how it would comport with PASPA are questions that remain unanswered.
What’s next after the rehearing?
Do not expect a ruling from the en banc court on Wednesday nor in close proximity to the rehearing. These decisions can take upwards of six months before actual rulings are released.
If New Jersey fails to win on rehearing, then it could appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. However, the U.S. Supreme Court receives roughly 8,000 petitions for cases to be heard per year, and it grants and hears oral argument in approximately eighty of them. Thus, the statistical odds of this case making it to the U.S. Supreme Court are slim.
Should New Jersey prevail, then it would be extremely likely that the NCAA and professional sports leagues file an appeal. Additionally, the NCAA and professional sports leagues would be destined to seek an injunction against New Jersey’s casinos and racetracks offering any forms of sports betting while an appeal is ongoing. Either way, the en banc court’s decision on rehearing may not be the end of this lingering battle concerning sports betting.
A ruling in favor of New Jersey not only has the potential to change the sports betting landscape within the state, but could have ramifications for other states that seek implementing a similar system. If the court deems that New Jersey’s effort is permissible, then we could see a similar structure adopted by other states, possibly leading to more lawsuit, but also potentially resulting in the death of PASPA.
-
University of Missouri Seeking Legal Opinion on Graduate Student Union Rights
Feb 10, 2016 | Columbia Daily Tribune
By Rudi Keller
The effort to organize a graduate student employee union at the University of Missouri faces an uncertain future because the school is unsure about student workers’ legal status and whether they have a right to organize, interim President Mike Middleton said in a news release issued Wednesday.
The release, issued after an unpublicized meeting between administrators and representatives of the Coalition for Graduate Workers and the National Education Association, reported that the university is examining the legal issues involved.
“We believe that the university needs clarity on the graduate students’ legal right to organize, as there is no legal precedent or clarity in current Missouri law to make that determination,” Middleton said.
A graduate employee rights movement began after Columbia campus officials announced Aug. 14 that MU would stop paying the health insurance premiums of graduate assistants, effective the next day. The university cited possible penalties of up to $100 per day per student because the plans violate provisions of the 2010 Affordable Care Act.
The university quickly reversed its decision, and interim Chancellor Hank Foley said Jan. 19 that it would provide coverage in the coming academic year while lobbying members of Congress. This week, U.S. Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., said the IRS had issued a new ruling that it would not impose the penalties for insurance plans that begin before Jan. 1, 2017, effectively allowing the status quo to remain in place through the 2016-17 school year.
No one from the Coalition for Graduate Workers could be reached Wednesday morning to comment on the meeting with officials. A petition supporting a union had more than 1,000 signatures by mid-December.
Last week, the Graduate Professional Council voted to support unionization efforts with a resolution asking the university to allow an election on representation. The council did not endorse creating a union for graduate student employees.
The unrest among graduate students might have spread to potential students. Graduate school applications for the coming year are down 19 percent, according to a Jan. 4 internal memo.
The news release listed other actions the university has taken to quiet unrest among graduate assistants, including a plan to increase minimum stipends by $3,000 over the coming two years and a request for proposals to provide housing that includes day care services.
The higher stipends were recommended in a report from a task force on graduate assistant health benefits as a way to help graduate students pay their own insurance premiums. Graduate assistants also receive tuition waivers as part of their compensation package.
“There is significant progress being made to address the identified concerns, and we are committed to working directly with graduate students to find common ground,” Foley said in a news release.
MU spent about $4 million to provide insurance subsidies for 3,100 graduate student employees in the 2014-15 school year.
“Now that the federal government has issued these new guidelines, we are appreciative to them and to our legislators who have worked on our behalf,” MU spokeswoman Mary Jo Banken wrote in an email. “We are in the process of reviewing the new guidelines as to how they affect us specifically.”
The IRS ruling, issued Friday, will allow all universities that provide similar subsidies to do so while they redesign their insurance programs, McCaskill said Monday in a news release.
“This decision means Mizzou’s hardworking graduate teaching assistants will no longer be in limbo when it comes to access to the quality, affordable health insurance they were promised,” McCaskill, an MU graduate, said in a news release.
Legal News
Add recipients
Suggested