Two logos side by side with Critical Legal Content in a red square on the left and HB Litigation in blue on the right

Business vs Business disputes, e.g., IP, fraud, contract breaches, antitrust, whistleblowers, M&A, trade secrets, poaching.

Healthcare Industry Antitrust Measures Advance as Pandemic Pressures Persist

July 15th, 2020|Categories: Complex Business Litigation, Corporate Compliance, Emerging Litigation & Risk, News|Tags: , , , , |

Healthcare Industry Antitrust Measures Advance as Pandemic Pressures Persist Did consolidation help frustrate U.S. COVID-19 preparedness? Clearly antitrust enforcers must consider external circumstances like the COVID-19 crisis when making enforcement decisions, and the agencies have bene able to pivot to respond to this crisis remarkably quickly. It is important, however, to also consider whether and how these emergency COVID-19 collaborations will unwind once the crisis has subsided. Collaborating competitors will have already shared critical information and resources, and that momentum can be difficult to halt. Jennifer M. Oliver, Partner, MoginRubin LLP READ MORE Jennifer M. Oliver Partner MoginRubin LLP

Read More

Tech’s Big Four Will Testify Before Antitrust Subcommittee

July 13th, 2020|Categories: Complex Business Litigation, Emerging Litigation & Risk, News, Technology Law|Tags: , , , , |

Four Technology Giants’ CEOs Will Testify Before Congress in On-going Antitrust Investigation Executives from Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Google will appear (either virtually, as they are permitted to, or in person) before the U.S. House of Representatives’ Judiciary Antitrust Subcommittee on July 27, 2020. According to its press release, the Subcommittee has been scrutinizing the companies’ dominance in their respective digital spheres and the “adequacy of existing antitrust laws and enforcement,” since June 2019. The hearing will enable legislators to question the executives about possible antitrust abuses, which have been the focus of many federal, state, and foreign regulatory inquiries. For example, Representatives may inquire about Amazon’s treatment of third-party merchants who sell products on its e-commerce platform, Google’s highly profitable ad business, Apple’s App Store terms that infringe on the rights of third-party app developers, and Facebook’s leverage of previously acquired companies to solidify its social media dominance, according to a July 1, 2020 New York Times article by David McCabe. The hearing may serve as the crowning piece of the Subcommittee’s antitrust probe. As the Subcommittee’s press release stated, the CEOs’ “forthcoming” testimony is “essential” to completion of the investigation.

Read More

Cannabis, CBD: Advertising and Drug Test Problems

July 12th, 2020|Categories: Class Actions, Complex Business Litigation, Environmental Torts, HB Risk Notes, News|Tags: , , |

COVID-19 vs Cannabis: Are Closures Legal? In the category of “damned if you do; damned if you don’t,” Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker shut down recreational cannabis shops, citing concerns over the spread of COVID-19. The dispensaries say the shutdown could seriously damage the industry. But, the governor said, the spread of disease will continue to damage the health of his constituents, especially as residents of states where recreational marijuana is illegal, come to Massachusetts to do their cannabis shopping. Citizens of the state may still obtain medical cannabis, as reported by WBUR. Too Much TCH: Can CBD Use Cost You Your Job? A New York truck driver has sued a CBD company for allegedly making a product, which he says he uses for pain relief, with too much THC, more than the label indicates. A Pennsylvania woman filed a similar case and a Missouri school bus monitor had a similar experience. Another Missourian blames the store where he purchased his CBD, saying he was assured the product contained minimal THC. All claim they were told they could pass drug tests. All failed their test. And all lost their jobs, according to a post on the Huffs & Puffs website. "Courtesy of a dearth of strict standards of testing, many companies tend to list lower values of THC on the product label," [...]

Read More

Monsanto, Bayer Paying Billions for PCB Cleanups

July 3rd, 2020|Categories: Class Actions, Complex Business Litigation, HB Tort Notes, Mass Torts|Tags: , |

Read Baltimore Sun environmental writer Scott Dance's June 24, 2020, article titled, "A $550M national class-action settlement includes money for cleanup of PCBs in Baltimore waterways." He offers the Maryland angle on the $550 million class action settlement between Monsanto and 13 government agencies across the U.S., just part of a much larger agreement. "The settlement was one of several that Monsanto’s owner, German pharmaceutical company Bayer, announced Wednesday. Bayer said it’s paying up to $10.9 billion to settle current and potential future litigation over Monsanto’s weedkiller Roundup, which has faced numerous lawsuits over claims it causes cancer, and $1.22 billion to settle two further cases, including the class action focused on PCBs." Dance writes that the terms of this settlement are off to Judge Fernando M. Olquin of the Central District of California for his review. Judge Olquin was one of the presenters on multiple panels at the Class Action Law Forum presented by Western Alliance Bank and produced by my team at HB. Kenneth R. Feinberg, also a presenter, is the court-appointed special master in the case. The Baltimore Sun piece was one of many that gave the local perspective on this nationwide litigation and settlement in progress, like this one from the San Francisco Chronicle, with a Seattle dateline, and this one from the Washington State Wire quoting [...]

Read More

Contract Drafting Fundamentals

July 2nd, 2020|Categories: CLE OnDemand, Complex Business Litigation, Corporate Compliance, HB Risk Notes, Law Firm Operations, Technology Law|Tags: , , |

Register Now Contract Drafting Fundamentals: What I Wish They Taught Me in Law School Speaker: Will Marshall | Partner UBM Law LLP Date: Thursday | July 23, 2020 Time: 2pm ET 1pm CT 12pm MT 11am PT Duration: 75 minutes Price: Early Bird Registration: $75 After July 14: $95 Special: Complimentary with discount code! What you get: CLE credit Course materials Webinar recording Answers to your questions! Contact CLE Manager Get practical insights on contract drafting. For new and seasoned attorneys alike, this 75-minute program will cover core, practical aspects of contract drafting, including a broad range of fundamental concepts, skills, and tips.  The program is designed to make you a more deliberate drafter and improve your ability to assess the purpose and effectiveness of each provision in your contract.  We will discuss not only what is on the page, but external dynamics that affect drafting and negotiation. Finally, we will reserve time to answer your questions. I am offering this program for free to my network to help you develop these foundational skills. If you haven't received it, please contact me directly for the complimentary pass code.  -- Will Marshall,  Partner, UBM Law Group LLP Key topics:  The goals and challenges of good drafting. The anatomy and building blocks of a contract. Categories [...]

Read More

The Intersection of Privacy and Antitrust Webinar Now Available On-Demand on the West LegalEdcenter

April 2nd, 2020|Categories: Complex Business Litigation, Featured On-Demand, HB Risk Notes, Technology Law|Tags: , , , , |

Available as part of your subscription to The Thomson Reuters West LegalEdcenter®. Don't subscribe to the West LegalEdcenter? This webinar is still available directly from HB. Take it now! Questions for speakers Questions@LitigationConferences.com CLE questions CLE@LitigationConferences.com Check out the MoginRubin blog for more insights on antitrust and privacy law. What attorneys and companies need to know about the increasing interplay between these critical areas of the law.  Highly publicized cases and investigations in the U.S. and Europe of big technology, e-commerce, and social media companies demonstrate how anti-competition laws are being used to scrutinize and challenge not only how these corporations conduct themselves in the marketplace, but the very core of their colossal success: the mass collection and utilization of user data. Are the privacy and antitrust worlds beginning to cross over? Or do they simply run parallel while addressing entirely different types of conduct? Whatever the answer, data is the raw material that drives the likes of Google, Facebook, Apple and Amazon, so how it is handled is a critical question when counseling clients on mergers and acquisitions. Moderator Daniel J.  Mogin | Managing Partner, MoginRubin LLP Speakers Jennifer M. Oliver, CIPP/US | Partner, MoginRubin LLP Thomas N. Dahdouh | Director, Western Region, Federal Trade Commission Franklin M. Rubinstein | Partner, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati Randi W. Singer, CIPP/US, CIPT [...]

Read More

The Intersection of Antitrust & Privacy | A MoginRubin Webinar | 10.31.2019

September 14th, 2019|Categories: CLE OnDemand, Complex Business Litigation, HB Risk Notes, Mass Torts, Technology Law|Tags: , , , , |

[two-fifths-first] Recorded: Oct. 31, 2019 Duration: 100 minutes Presented by:  MoginRubin LLP Produced by: HB Litigation Conferences The Panel Moderator Daniel J.  Mogin | Managing Partner, MoginRubin LLP Speakers Jennifer M. Oliver, CIPP/US | Partner, MoginRubin LLP Thomas N. Dahdouh | Director, Western Region, Federal Trade Commission Franklin M. Rubinstein | Partner, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati Randi W. Singer, CIPP/US, CIPT | Partner, Weil, Gotshal & Manges Contributor Dina Srinivasan | Independent Researcher & Author of The Antitrust Case Against Facebook Dina was unable to present but we thank her for her content contributions.  What you will get: At least 1 hour of CLE credit. Answers to your questions via email. The opportunity to share with others on your team. The complete Powerpoint. The Antitrust Case Against Facebook Dina Srinivasan's statement to the House Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial, and Administrative Law The Chicago Booth School Stigler Center Committee on Digital Platforms Final Report Write to us at CLE@LitigationConferences.com to: Ask about CLE Request the materials Send a question for the speakers [/two-fifths-first][three-fifths] Market Behavior and Data-Driven Market Power Highly publicized cases and investigations in the U.S. and Europe of big technology, e-commerce, and social media companies demonstrate how anti-competition laws are being used to scrutinize and challenge not only how these corporations conduct themselves in the [...]

Read More

Canna Law Blog Reviews Hemp-CBD Regulations State-by-State, Week-by-Week

July 22nd, 2019|Categories: Complex Business Litigation, Corporate Compliance, HB Risk Notes, HB Tort Notes|Tags: , , , , |

“When it comes to hemp, few states have embraced it like Colorado,” writes Harris Bricken attorney Daniel Shortt. “If you buy a product containing hemp, in any state across the country, it likely came from Colorado.” The state has allocated more than 12,000 acres of outdoor space and 2.35 million square feet of indoor space to hemp cultivation, according to Marijuana Business Daily. Shortt and his colleagues are working their way through a state-by-state series on the Canna Law Blog™, titled Hemp-CBD Across State Lines. The Harris Bricken team has covered Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas and California, and added Colorado to the list yesterday, July 21. The firm’s series covers state regulatory activity following the enactment of the federal Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018, aka “The Farm Bill,” which removed hemp and its derivatives from the definition of marijuana under the Controlled Substances Act. The bill gave the USDA regulatory authority over hemp cultivation at the federal level, but states may maintain primary regulatory authority over the crop cultivated within their borders by submitting a plan to the USDA, Shortt explains. Read the Canna Law Blog's Colorado post and follow this series, updated weekly. Related Webinar This Week The Harris Bricken law firm has been on the forefront of the law regarding cannabis and related products for years. Three Harris Bricken [...]

Read More

PTSD in Multi-Plaintiff and Mass Tort Cases | Webinar OnDemand

July 19th, 2019|Categories: Class Actions, Complex Business Litigation, Employment, HB Risk Notes, Mass Torts|Tags: , , , , |

[one-fourth-first]   Price: $47 When: On-demand Where: Your computer or mobile device CLE: 1 hour Speakers Mark I. Levy MD, DLFAPA Medical Director Forensic Psychiatric Associates Medical Corporation Associate Clinical Professor, Psychiatry University of California, San Francisco, School of Medicine 415.388.8040 mlevy@fpamed.com  Sarah A. Hall, PhD. Psychologist for Forensic & Neuropsychological Assessments Forensic Psychiatric Associates Medical Corporation shall@fpamed.com  [/one-fourth-first][three-fourths] What tort attorneys need to know about PTSD claims. Mass tort claims arise most frequently in man-made and natural disaster catastrophe litigation as well as personal injury, employment, product liability and toxic tort litigation. Frequently, these lawsuits include either primary or secondary allegations of emotional distress. PTSD is one of the most common emotional distress claims alleged within mass tort litigation, as well as allegations of depression and emotional stress (anxiety).  Join an experienced psychiatrist and psychologist who will cover the following topics relevant to the forensic psychiatric assessment of emotional damages within mass tort and complex litigation:  + Introduction: Defining PTSD. What it is and what it is not. + The methodological approach to assessing allegations of emotional distress in mass tort & complex litigation. + The importance and the methodology of psychological testing as part of the assessment of emotional distress claims in mass tort litigation. + Claimant population screening. Using psychological test instruments to differentiate claimants who [...]

Read More

Wells Fargo Proposes to Settle Auto Insurance Case for $386M — Yahoo!

June 26th, 2019|Categories: Class Actions, Complex Business Litigation, Corporate Compliance, HB Risk Notes, Insurance|Tags: , , , |

In 2017 customers of Wells Fargo & Company (WFC) filed a class action lawsuit alleging the bank forced unwanted auto insurance without permission from the customers. Currently WFC plans to pay around $386 million to settle the 2017 class action lawsuit. The high payout is due to the sheer number of customers affected. About 270,000 WFC customers were "pushed into delinquency " and "almost 25,000 wrongful vehicle repossessions." In addition to the class action settlement, WFC will be reaching out to individual customers offering financial service recovery, and restructuring their leadership teams. WFC is still seeing a decrease in sales and their numbers. In six months WFC shares "lost 4.5% against 6.5% growth recorded by the industry." Read the complete post on Yahoo! here.

Read More

CannaLawBlog — Legalizing Cannabis Cash

June 5th, 2019|Categories: Complex Business Litigation, HB Risk Notes, Law Firm Operations|Tags: , , , , |

On May 20, 2019 banking associations from all 50 states and 1 territory sent a letter to Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee urging them to conduct hearings on the merits of providing cannabis-related business access to banking services. CannaLawBlog highlighted the primary concerns of the letter in a recent post: "Again, the primary concern expressed was that current law forces state-legal businesses to operate on a cash basis, which poses a safety risk, complicates enforcement efforts, and could damage local economies." The banking associations wanted to emphasize their neutrality on the legality of cannabis, rather they wanted to show strength as a national community and validate, support, and respect those communities that have voted for legalized recreational marijuana. Read the complete post by HarrisBricken attorney Jihee Ahn on The CannaLawBlog.

Read More

The Wrong-Headedness of Hindsight Standards — Michelle Yeary | Drug & Device Law Blog

May 27th, 2019|Categories: Complex Business Litigation, HB Risk Notes, Mass Torts|Tags: , , , |

Dechert LLP attorney Michelle Yeary cautions against applying perfect hindsight to drug liability. "We all know hindsight is 20/20.  And, it’s easy.  There are dozens of television and radio programs that thrive on Monday morning quarterbacking.  There’s no risk in saying the coach should have called for a pass when you already know the run didn’t work.  It’s also dangerous because it’s easy.  People are often too quick to point out that you should have taken path B after everyone learns path A is full of potholes.  Pointing it out is one thing, holding you liable for it is another." Yeary takes a look at what happened in Holley v. Gilead Science, Inc., 2019 WL 2077845 (N.D. Cal. May 10, 2019). The case involves two of the main active ingredients in AIDS drugs: TDF and TAF. The plaintiff alleges that the defendant should be responsible for allegedly knowingly using TDF over TAF (allegedly a safer alternative). TDF was FDA approved first and TAF second.  Unfortunately, Yeary wrote, hindsight "can be used to demand perfection," allowing  plaintiffs to "proceed on what is essentially a stop-selling theory," that first-generation drugs should not be submitted to the FDA because, in hindsight, "later approved treatments were safer." That's what happened in Holley, she said. Read the complete post by Michelle Yeary on the Drug and [...]

Read More
Go to Top