Skip to main content
Please enter a legal issue and/or a location
Begin typing to search, use arrow keys to navigate, use enter to select

Find a Lawyer

More Options

Merrill Lynch Claim is Time Barred; New Freelance Writer Settlement

By Gabriella Khorasanee, JD on November 27, 2013 | Last updated on March 21, 2019

Perhaps the Second Circuit is already in a pre-Thanksgiving, turkey tryptophan-induced food coma, but so far it's been a not-so busy week for the court as far as precedential decisions. But, there is some important news coming out of the circuit that is worth noting.

Claims Against Merrill Lynch are Time Barred

In February 2013, U.S. District Judge Marrero of the Southern District of New York dismissed South Korean bank Woori's claims against Merrill Lynch over losses related to $143 million worth of collateralized debt obligations, reports Bloomberg. Judge Marrerro found the claim was time barred, stating, "the overall controversy surrounding Merrill Lynch's CDO investments and relationship with the ratings agencies, numerous government investigations into Merrill Lynch, and private lawsuits against Merrill Lynch ... were sufficient to put Woori on notice" about possible claims against Merrill Lynch.

In a summary order, the Second Circuit affirmed the district court's decision, reports Jurist. It found that the district court properly applied the New York borrowing statute, and that Woori, based on its own pleadings, had notice of possible wrongdoing as early as 2007, yet did not file a claim until 2011. As such, the Second Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of Woori's claims because they were time barred.

New Proposed Settlement for Freelance Writers

In 2001, the Supreme Court ruled that publishers violated their freelance writers' copyrights when they reproduced their works online, without first getting the writers' permission. Four years later, after extensive mediation, a settlement was agreed upon, which included an $18 million settlement cap, reports Reuters. A group of authors contested the settlement because of the cap, claiming that the cap "unfairly reduced the compensation they could recover," says Reuters.

On Friday, the authors asked the district court to approve a revised settlement agreement that removed the cap on compensation. Though the final amount of the settlement is unknown, Reuters reports that Charles Chalmers, the authors' attorney, said he "did not expect the claims to exceed $19.5 million."

Related Resources:

You Don’t Have To Solve This on Your Own – Get a Lawyer’s Help

Meeting with a lawyer can help you understand your options and how to best protect your rights. Visit our attorney directory to find a lawyer near you who can help.

Or contact an attorney near you:
Copied to clipboard