Uber, Lyft Hit With Bombshell Driver Ruling as Key Vote Looms, , on October 23, 2020 at 3:45 am

Financial News
By
On October 23, 2020
In Financial News
Tags:

(Bloomberg) — Uber Technologies Inc. and Lyft Inc. face the gravest threat yet to their business models after an appeals court ruled they must treat their drivers in California as employees instead of independent contractors.The bombshell decision Thursday comes less than two weeks before an election in which the ride-hailing companies are counting on voters to approve a ballot measure that would partially exempt them from the labor law at issue in the legal fight. If the vote doesn’t go their way, Uber and Lyft are threatening to shut down in their home state.The ruling upheld a lower court’s order that the companies comply with Assembly Bill 5 — which took effect in January — and provide drivers with the costly benefits that employee status confers.“Although the business context may be relatively new, we conclude that the injunction was properly issued in accordance with enduring principles of equity,” the three-judge appeals panel said in its ruling. “It is broad in scope, no doubt, but so too is the scale of the alleged violations.”Wrenching ChangesUber and Lyft are helping bankroll Proposition 22 in the most expensive ballot-measure campaign in California history. Polls have indicated the election outcome is too close to call. “Today’s ruling means that if the voters don’t say yes on Proposition 22, rideshare drivers will be prevented from continuing to work as independent contractors, putting hundreds of thousands of Californians out of work and likely shutting down ridesharing throughout much of the state,” Uber said in a statement.Lyft said it was considering an appeal to the California Supreme Court.Proposition 22, which is set for a vote Nov. 3, exempts the companies from paying for full benefits that employees currently get under California law, such as unemployment insurance and complete workers compensation, while requiring a pay guarantee for drivers’ time on trips, health care contributions and medical and disability coverage, among others.The appeals court rejected the argument put forth by Uber and Lyft that the Aug. 10 injunction issued against them was “radical” or “unprecedented.”‘Modern Technology’“These adjectives perhaps say more about the reach of modern technology and the scale of today’s technology-driven commerce than they do about the order itself,” the panel said.The ruling was hailed by opponents of Proposition 22.“No matter how many times Uber and Lyft break the law, Attorney General Xavier Becerra and city attorneys have had rideshare drivers’ backs as we demanded what the law clearly guarantees us: sick pay, unemployment insurance, and workers’ compensation,” said Uber and Lyft driver Jerome Gage.Gig Workers Rising, an organization representing some drivers, called the court’s decision a huge victory.“First the state legislature, then the governor, and now the courts have all agreed that drivers are employees under state law, and Prop. 22 is nothing more than an attempt by multi-billion dollar gig companies to undo that recognition,” the group said in an emailed statement.(Updates with election in second paragraph.)For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.comSubscribe now to stay ahead with the most trusted business news source.©2020 Bloomberg L.P.,

Uber, Lyft Hit With Bombshell Driver Ruling as Key Vote Looms(Bloomberg) — Uber Technologies Inc. and Lyft Inc. face the gravest threat yet to their business models after an appeals court ruled they must treat their drivers in California as employees instead of independent contractors.The bombshell decision Thursday comes less than two weeks before an election in which the ride-hailing companies are counting on voters to approve a ballot measure that would partially exempt them from the labor law at issue in the legal fight. If the vote doesn’t go their way, Uber and Lyft are threatening to shut down in their home state.The ruling upheld a lower court’s order that the companies comply with Assembly Bill 5 — which took effect in January — and provide drivers with the costly benefits that employee status confers.“Although the business context may be relatively new, we conclude that the injunction was properly issued in accordance with enduring principles of equity,” the three-judge appeals panel said in its ruling. “It is broad in scope, no doubt, but so too is the scale of the alleged violations.”Wrenching ChangesUber and Lyft are helping bankroll Proposition 22 in the most expensive ballot-measure campaign in California history. Polls have indicated the election outcome is too close to call. “Today’s ruling means that if the voters don’t say yes on Proposition 22, rideshare drivers will be prevented from continuing to work as independent contractors, putting hundreds of thousands of Californians out of work and likely shutting down ridesharing throughout much of the state,” Uber said in a statement.Lyft said it was considering an appeal to the California Supreme Court.Proposition 22, which is set for a vote Nov. 3, exempts the companies from paying for full benefits that employees currently get under California law, such as unemployment insurance and complete workers compensation, while requiring a pay guarantee for drivers’ time on trips, health care contributions and medical and disability coverage, among others.The appeals court rejected the argument put forth by Uber and Lyft that the Aug. 10 injunction issued against them was “radical” or “unprecedented.”‘Modern Technology’“These adjectives perhaps say more about the reach of modern technology and the scale of today’s technology-driven commerce than they do about the order itself,” the panel said.The ruling was hailed by opponents of Proposition 22.“No matter how many times Uber and Lyft break the law, Attorney General Xavier Becerra and city attorneys have had rideshare drivers’ backs as we demanded what the law clearly guarantees us: sick pay, unemployment insurance, and workers’ compensation,” said Uber and Lyft driver Jerome Gage.Gig Workers Rising, an organization representing some drivers, called the court’s decision a huge victory.“First the state legislature, then the governor, and now the courts have all agreed that drivers are employees under state law, and Prop. 22 is nothing more than an attempt by multi-billion dollar gig companies to undo that recognition,” the group said in an emailed statement.(Updates with election in second paragraph.)For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.comSubscribe now to stay ahead with the most trusted business news source.©2020 Bloomberg L.P.

,

Instant Quote

Enter the Stock Symbol.

Select the Exchange.

Select the Type of Security.

Please enter your First Name.

Please enter your Last Name.

Please enter your phone number.

Please enter your Email Address.

Please enter or select the Total Number of Shares you own.

Please enter or select the Desired Loan Amount you are seeking.

Please select the Loan Purpose.

Please select if you are an Officer/Director.

High West Capital Partners, LLC may only offer certain information to persons who are “Accredited Investors” and/or “Qualified Clients” as those terms are defined under applicable Federal Securities Laws. In order to be an “Accredited Investor” and/or a “Qualified Client”, you must meet the criteria identified in ONE OR MORE of the following categories/paragraphs numbered 1-20 below.

High West Capital Partners, LLC cannot provide you with any information regarding its Loan Programs or Investment Products unless you meet one or more of the following criteria. Furthermore, Foreign nationals who may be exempt from qualifying as a U.S. Accredited Investor are still required to meet the established criteria, in accordance with High West Capital Partners, LLC’s internal lending policies. High West Capital Partners, LLC will not provide information or lend to any individual and/or entity that does not meet one or more of the following criteria:

1) Individual with Net Worth in excess of $1.0 million. A natural person (not an entity) whose net worth, or joint net worth with his or her spouse, at the time of purchase exceeds $1,000,000 USD. (In calculating net worth, you may include your equity in personal property and real estate, including your principal residence, cash, short-term investments, stock and securities. Your inclusion of equity in personal property and real estate should be based on the fair market value of such property less debt secured by such property.)

2) Individual with $200,000 individual Annual Income. A natural person (not an entity) who had individual income of more than $200,000 in each of the preceding two calendar years, and has a reasonable expectation of reaching the same income level in the current year.

3) Individual with $300,000 Joint Annual Income. A natural person (not an entity) who had joint income with his or her spouse in excess of $300,000 in each of the preceding two calendar years, and has a reasonable expectation of reaching the same income level in the current year.

4) Corporations or Partnerships. A corporation, partnership, or similar entity that has in excess of $5 million of assets and was not formed for the specific purpose of acquiring an interest in the Corporation or Partnership.

5) Revocable Trust. A trust that is revocable by its grantors and each of whose grantors is an Accredited Investor as defined in one or more of the other categories/paragraphs numbered herein.

6) Irrevocable Trust. A trust (other than an ERISA plan) that (a)is not revocable by its grantors, (b) has in excess of $5 million of assets, (c) was not formed for the specific purpose of acquiring an interest, and (d) is directed by a person who has such knowledge and experience in financial and business matters that such person is capable of evaluating the merits and risks of an investment in the Trust.

7) IRA or Similar Benefit Plan. An IRA, Keogh or similar benefit plan that covers only a single natural person who is an Accredited Investor, as defined in one or more of the other categories/paragraphs numbered herein.

8) Participant-Directed Employee Benefit Plan Account. A participant-directed employee benefit plan investing at the direction of, and for the account of, a participant who is an Accredited Investor, as that term is defined in one or more of the other categories/paragraphs numbered herein.

9) Other ERISA Plan. An employee benefit plan within the meaning of Title I of the ERISA Act other than a participant-directed plan with total assets in excess of $5 million or for which investment decisions (including the decision to purchase an interest) are made by a bank, registered investment adviser, savings and loan association, or insurance company.

10) Government Benefit Plan. A plan established and maintained by a state, municipality, or any agency of a state or municipality, for the benefit of its employees, with total assets in excess of $5 million.

11) Non-Profit Entity. An organization described in Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, as amended, with total assets in excess of $5 million (including endowment, annuity and life income funds), as shown by the organization’s most recent audited financial statements.

12) A bank, as defined in Section 3(a)(2) of the Securities Act (whether acting for its own account or in a fiduciary capacity).

13) A savings and loan association or similar institution, as defined in Section 3(a)(5)(A) of the Securities Act (whether acting for its own account or in a fiduciary capacity).

14) A broker-dealer registered under the Exchange Act.

15) An insurance company, as defined in Section 2(13) of the Securities Act.

16) A “business development company,” as defined in Section 2(a)(48) of the Investment Company Act.

17) A small business investment company licensed under Section 301 (c) or (d) of the Small Business Investment Act of 1958.

18) A “private business development company” as defined in Section 202(a)(22) of the Advisers Act.

19) Executive Officer or Director. A natural person who is an executive officer, director or general partner of the Partnership or the General Partner, and is an Accredited Investor as that term is defined in one or more of the categories/paragraphs numbered herein.

20) Entity Owned Entirely By Accredited Investors. A corporation, partnership, private investment company or similar entity each of whose equity owners is a natural person who is an Accredited Investor, as that term is defined in one or more of the categories/paragraphs numbered herein.

Please read the notice above and check the box below to continue.

Singapore

+65 3105 1295

Taiwan

Coming Soon!

Hong Kong

R91, 3rd Floor,
Eton Tower, 8 Hysan Ave.
Causeway Bay, Hong Kong
+852 3002 4462

Follow Us

Market Coverage