After 17 years as general counsel, Eric Fencl is handing the reins to Yevgeny Fundler. This will be his fourth legal chief role.       

The defense had argued that the servers that processed the collected images were based outside of Illinois and, therefore, not subject to to the Prairie State’s biometric law.       

The company argued that it did not view the plaintiff’s medical records as indicating he was disabled, but rather that the records showed that seizures may impair his work later.       

George Vincent is replacing Christine Wheatley, the latest in a series of C-suite changes at the company since its $25 billion purchase of Albertsons unraveled.       

“The federal interests here are particularly weak compared to the relatively strong interest of the state in interpreting its own statute via a specialized tribunal created by the state legislature,” said U.S. District Judge John J. Tharp Jr. of the Northern District of Illinois.       

The court concluded that numerous factors weighed in favor of transferring the case to Texas and granted the motion under 28 U.S.C. § 1404, which allows a court to transfer a case for the interest of justice or for the convenience of the parties and witnesses.       

“Under [the plaintiffs’] reading, virtually all pharmaceutical product-support services would qualify as a kickback, U.S. District Court Judge John Tharp for the Northern District of Illinois said.       

“The mere existence of a statute permitting an officer to ask for information does not authorize an arrest for failing to provide it without some legal authority behind the demand,” said Judge L. Steven Grasz, who authored the opinion.       

“Touche as the saying goes! Magistrate Judge Jeffrey Gilbert wrote about the defendant’s seemingly hypocritical request. “So, are defendants vulnerable to the same argument they make about the timeliness of plaintiff’s motion? Should both motions be denied on that basis?       

“In other words, Missouri law is clear that a motion that is expressly declared by Supreme Court Rule to be an independent action must be resolved by an independent judgment that meets the requirements of Rule 74.01(a) before it is final and appealable—a principle made clear by cases interpreting Rule 74.05(d),” the court said.