I received this one today.  I find it hard to believe that someone would fall for this, but if a woman thinks it’s smart to put their child in the trunk to avoid a car-seat ticket, then I guess there’s someone who would fall for this.

Here’s the email:

_________________________________________________

Attention Sir/M,

Please if you made any payment to any one in the past or present
through Western Union/Money Gram/Bank Transfer/ for any kind of
transaction contract payment/Inheritance Fund/Lottery Fund/Jackpot/and
so on.

Please you are hereby advised to send a copy of the payment mothered
you used if it’s Western Union/Money Gram or Bank Transfer, Just send
the copy the transaction to prove that you were scammed.

If you don’t keep any record of your payment then send to him the email
you have being receiving from the people or any office it maybe, That
will enable us to verify and then approve your compensation of
$800.000.00 USD. As it was instructed by the (UNN) Chairman to pay the
sum of USD$800.000.00 to each of the scam victim person,

_________________________________________________

So isn’t that great news?  The UNN Chairman has authorized payments of $800,000 to victims of scams.  I think the UNN is like the UN, except twice as good, hence the two “N”s.  Almost makes me wish I was a scam victim.  Now if I could only figure out what a “payment mothered” is.

These emails had slowed down for a while, but they’ve picked up again.  Maybe it was summer break.  The latest rash of emails contain requests for legal representation, sometimes just an amorphous request.  Other times, the inquirer is looking to start a collection lawsuit.  This is a scam that has actually worked on some unsuspecting lawyers.

Some tips.  If the English is bad, ignore the email.  If the email address is a free email service but the person writing to you claims to be from a large international corporation, ignore the email.  If the sender wants you to engage in a transaction that makes no sense for your type or size of practice, ignore the email.

Practice safe out there.

That’s the view of one lawyer from Jupiter, Palm Beach County, Florida.  I’m Marc Dobin.

It has been so long that I can’t remember my first expungement request. If it’s for the client I think it is, he’s still working as a broker. FINRA, the organization that is overseeing the expungement process in arbitration, issued new guidance today regarding expungements. You can find it here.

Expungements, which are, at their core, a removal of disclosures on a broker’s CRD record, have been an issue for quite some time. Early on, it was a simple stipulation between the parties. A Stipulated Award was entered and that was sent to the CRD department for processing. Then NASAA got involved (and maybe PIABA) and started complaining that, since the CRD system was used jointly by FINRA and the state securities administrators, this amounted to FINRA changing a state’s record.

So a new plan was hatched. Brokers would now be required to get a court’s stamp of approval on the expungement and FINRA would require specific findings. This requirement was ultimately codified in FINRA Rule 2080. Rule 2080 says that FINRA may waive its right to object to the expungement if the arbitrator(s) make one of three findings. But the rule also says that FINRA may waive its right to object in one other scenario – “(A) the expungement relief and accompanying findings on which it is based are meritorious; and (B) the expungement would have no material adverse effect on investor protection, the integrity of the CRD system or regulatory requirements.”  Meritorious is not defined.

My example would be this, because this actually happened. My client was named by two separate clients in one arbitration. The total claim was approximately $2.5 million. The broker-dealer was bankrupt so my client was the only pocket. My client settled with each individual client for an amount that, if each client had filed a separate claim, would have been non-reportable. But in the aggregate, the total settlement payment went over the reportable amount. Since it was one claim and not two separate claim, this large claim with a nominal settlement would have been on his record forever. We presented to the panel, and the panel agreed, that the combination of the two claims resulted in a reportable event that was not fair to be reported. The expungement was granted and FINRA waived its objection. I’m guessing this counted as “meritorious”.

So it’s not just the three specified reasons in the first part of Rule 2080 that applies. FINRA arbitrators, sitting in equity, can still decide to do what’s right. FINRA’s new pronouncement on expungement ignores this second part of the rule, which is unfair to brokers seeking expungements. FINRA is under immense pressure from NASAA, I am sure. And then there are the plaintiffs’ lawyers who, for years, were signing off on expungement deals all the time while beating their chests about investor protection. There are a few lawyers out there who refused to agree to expungement deals, but they were rare. FINRA stepped in and made it easy, though, by recently issuing rule 2081 which prohibits a settlement that, basically, requires the customer to agree to an expungement or not oppose it.

So are expungements dead? I don’t think so. It just may take more of a fight to get there. And that’s what lawyers are for.

That’s the view of one lawyer from Jupiter, Palm Beach County, Florida. I’m Marc Dobin.

I’ve had some dealings with Google and how it deals with customer trademarks. Google’s basic policy was that a trademark, or a recognizable variation of it, could not appear in an Adword display or paid search results. So if a user input “Ford Mustang” a Google display ad would not “Just like Ford Mustang” and advertise something else. Or a client I had that had its share of legal problems. If one searched that name, it would serve up a list of lawyers in the AdWords section that had the client’s trademarked name in the ad. Google would take that down.

Today, LVMH and Google announced an agreement where LVMH could get Google to suppress search results that serve up counterfeit LVMH products. Bloomberg reports on it here. The terms of the settlement are not discussed, but it appears that this will suppress results when a user searches for, say, a Louis Vuitton handbag, Google won’t display “Just Like Louis Vuitton” handbags in the results. From what little I can find, LVMH will have to do its own policing and tell Google about it.

But this settlement does not seem to settle a more insidious problem. Google can sell, and has sold, trademarks as keywords to competitors. One of the more famous cases, which settled confidentially, was a lawsuit brought by American Airlines. American was made because users searching on Google for its airline would receive paid ads for other airlines and travel agencies. Why? Because Google was allowing these competitors to buy the term “American Airlines” as a keyword phrase. American Airlines was not pleased. Bloomberg describes the litigation and settlement here.

In a different article Google states that it did not make any special concessions related to keyword “sponsored ads.” But, magically, if you type American Airlines into a Google search bar, there are no sponsored ads and the American Airlines website appears at the top. It’s a miracle!

On the other hand, if you’re a small mom-and-pop company without the legions of resources of American (despite its bankruptcy), you’re hosed. Google, when I last dealt with the company, believes that it can sell trademarks as keywords to its heart’s content. That is, of course, it gets sued by a company with nearly bottomless pockets. Frankly, I don’t think Google’s policy was correct when I dealt with the company before and, if that policy is still in place, it seems unfair to me now. If a company goes to the trouble of protecting its trademark, why should a search engine make money selling that trademark as a keyword? The search engine couldn’t stick the name “Apple” on a phone and sell it. But it can sell the phrase “Apple computer” and serve up related results. Although, it seems, Apple has worked around this because I just did a Google search and the only thing that came up was the Apple website.

The law is trying to keep up with the technology. But sometimes, it just can’t. We need our government to step in and stop search engines from selling trademarks as keywords. Trademarks are not theirs to sell.

That’s the view of one lawyer from Jupiter, Palm Beach County, Florida. I’m Marc Dobin.