Pasadena California Business & Commercial Law Blog

It has been a little over a month since Lyft's trading debut, which after a strong start quickly struggled and continues to decline. Now Uber looks to avoid the same fate is it prepares for its upcoming debut.

Uber recently announced an initial valuation of between $80 and $91 billion dollars, a number that towers over Lyft's $24 billion, but which some suggest could be an undervaluation. This apparent undervaluation may be Uber's attempt to avoid the slide that Lyft's stock saw after its debut. Yet, Uber still faces some of the same pitfalls, as it, like Lyft, is still unprofitable.

As discussed on this blog recently, gig economy companies have been changing the face of employment with more and more people being employed and impacted by the rising industry. On March 29, Lyft added to this evolving story with its successful trading debut.

Lyft's shares rose 8.7%, rising to $87.24 from its $72 offering price. This, it's noted, makes Lyft "one of the most valuable American companies to go public in the last decade." However, things haven't been entirely rosy.

As discussed previously on this blog, the transportation market is rapidly evolving both in terms of the laws governing it and in the nature of the business itself. Now, FedEx is looking to bring the next innovation along as it announced plans for last-minute robot delivery for companies such as Pizza Hut and Walmart.

This new development will be tested over the summer of 2019. The plan is to use robots, drones, and self-driving cars to deliver goods to customers that reside near store locations. It is believed that this could account for fifty percent or more of deliveries.

In a recent Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA") decision, the United States Supreme Court unanimously made getting to arbitration more difficult for trucking companies. In Oliveira v. New Prime, the Supreme Court determined that it was for a court, not an arbitrator, to decide if the exemption in Section 1 of the FAA applies. More importantly for truckers, the Court decided that the Section 1 exemption applied to all truck drivers, whether employees or independent contractors. This means the FAA cannot be used to compel arbitration of claims involving truck drivers.

In this case, Oliveira was a driver who provided services for New Prime, an interstate transportation company, as an independent contractor. He brought suit arguing New Prime violated minimum wage requirements and various labor statutes. New Prime's contract with Oliveira required the parties to arbitrate. However, when New Prime sought to have the case taken to arbitration their motion was denied. New Prime's appeal eventually made its way to the Supreme Court