CORPORATE RISK | INSURANCE | PRIVACY
News | Insights | Webinars

Class Certification After Olean v. Bumble Bee with Jonathan Rubin of MoginRubin LLP

July 19th, 2022|Categories: Emerging Issues Webinars, Emerging Litigation & Risk, Featured On-Demand, HB Emerging Law Notes, HB Risk Notes, HB Tort Notes, New Webinars|Tags: , , , , , , , , , |

Featured Speaker Jonathan focuses his practice exclusively on antitrust and competition law and policy. As a litigator, he has led trial teams in major antitrust cases in courts throughout the country. As a thought-leader in competition law, he has published in influential academic journals and has spoken to numerous professional groups, including the Directorate General for Competition of the European Commission, the Antitrust Section of the American Bar Association, the University of Wisconsin, and the American Antitrust Institute. Jonathan has also made several appearances before congressional committees. More About Rubin For more information please email Tom Hagy Explore more from MoginRubin LLP! Blog: Emboldened by New Resources and Expanded Authority, Feds Continue 10-Year Look Back at Chinese Investment. By Dan Mogin, Jonathan Rubin, Jennifer Oliver, and Timothy LaComb. List OnDemand CLE Webinar: The Antitrust Case Against Google. Dan Mogin, Jonathan Rubin, Jennifer Oliver, Timothy LaComb, John Newman, Dr. Alan Grant Blog: FTC’s Case Against Facebook Will Test the Flexibility of U.S. Antitrust Law.Authors: Jonathan Rubin and Jennifer Oliver, MoginRubin LLP Blog: Full Ninth Circuit Removes Unwarranted Hurdles to Class Certification. Journal: Policy Derailed: Can U.S. Antitrust Policy Toward Standard Essential Patents Get Back on Track by Jonathan Rubin Webinar: Class Certification After Olean v. Bumble Bee with Jonathan Rubin, James Bogan lll, Jonathan Cohn, Bradley Hamburger. Journal: FTC v. Amazon: Market Definitions and Section 5 [...]

Read More

Analysis of Target Decision that Loss-of-Use Damages Included Card Replacement Costs Post-Data Breach | By Joshua Mooney, Judy Selby, and Tracey Kline | Kennedys Law

April 27th, 2022|Categories: Cyber Risk Litigation, Emerging Litigation & Risk, HB Emerging Law Notes, HB Risk Notes, Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation, New Featured Post for Home Page|Tags: , , , , , , , , , |

A Significant Deviation: Target v. Ace Finds Loss-of-Use Damages Included Post-Breach Card Replacement Analysis On March 22, 2022, the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota ruled that two ACE insurers were obligated to indemnify Target Corporation (“Target”) for the amounts it paid to settle claims related to replacement of payment cards impacted in a data breach, vacating an earlier decision in which the court found that Target was not entitled to coverage. Target Corp. v. ACE Am. Ins. Co., No. 19-CV-2916 (WMW/DTS), 2022 WL 848095 (D. Minn. Mar. 22, 2022), vacating 517 F. Supp. 3d 798 (D. Minn. 2021). The new decision deviates from how other courts have evaluated general liability coverage for damages because of “loss of use of tangible property that is not physically injured.” Insurers would do well to take notice. Background In 2013, Target was the victim of a massive data breach that occurred after hackers installed malicious software on its computer network, which enabled them to steal the payment card data and personal contact information of an estimated 110 million individuals with Target payment cards (the “Data Breach”). Multiple lawsuits were brought against Target, including suits by financial institutions (the “Issuing Banks”) that had issued debit and credit cards (the “Payment Cards”) affected by the Data Breach. The Issuing Banks filed class action [...]

Read More

Can we rely on shareholders to compel corporations to meaningfully act on ESG issues? | By Rebecca Boon and John Rizio-Hamilton | Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann

February 22nd, 2022|Categories: Emerging Litigation & Risk, HB Emerging Law Notes, HB Risk Notes, New Featured Post for Home Page|Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , |

The Authors Rebecca Boon has been litigating securities fraud and shareholder rights actions for over a decade, recovering more than $1.5 billion for the firm’s institutional investor clients. Her work at the firm expands beyond litigation. Rebecca has advanced equality in the workplace by co-founding the Beyond #MeToo working group and leading landmark recoveries that have resulted in hundreds of millions of dollars back to investors and important social change among industries. Contact: rebecca.Boon@blbglaw.com John Rizio-Hamilton is one of America’s top shareholder litigators. He works on the most complex and high-stakes securities class action cases, and has recovered billions of dollars on behalf of institutional investor clients. John led the trial team that recovered $240 million for investors in In re Signet Jewelers Limited Securities Litigation, a precedent-setting case that marks the first successful resolution of a securities fraud class action based on allegations of sexual harassment. Contact: johnr@blbglaw.com Can we rely on shareholders to compel corporations to meaningfully act on ESG issues? By Rebecca Boon and John Rizio-Hamilton This article was first published in the Responsible Investor, Aug., 10th, 2021. Posted with permission of the authors. Copyright 2021 by Rebecca Boon & John Rizio-Hamilton.  All rights reserved. There is an ongoing debate about the role that regulators should take regarding corporate obligations and accountability [...]

Read More

7th Circuit: Is Each Transmission of Biometric Data a BIPA Violation? | By Jennifer M. Oliver | MoginRubin LLP

January 13th, 2022|Categories: Cyber Risk, Cyber Risk Litigation, Emerging Litigation & Risk, HB Emerging Law Notes, HB Risk Notes, New Featured Post for Home Page|Tags: , , , , , , |

7th Circuit: Is Each Transmission of Biometric Data a BIPA Violation? By Jennifer M. Oliver The outcome of this case will have a dramatic impact on statutory damages. The Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals has certified a question to the Illinois Supreme Court over the accrual of claims under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA). The question, posed by the court in Cothron v. White Castle Systems, Inc., reads: “Do section 15(b) and 15(d) claims accrue each time a private entity scans a person’s biometric identifier and each time a private entity transmits such a scan to a third party, respectively, or only upon the first scan and first transmission?” The case was brought by an employee of the White Castle hamburger chain, which requires fingerprint scans for employees to access computer systems. The plaintiff charged that sharing her fingerprints with a third party vendor violated the law. Cothron v. White Castle Sys., No. 20-3202, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 37593 (7th Cir. Dec. 20, 2021). An accrual rule based on each collection, opponents to such a finding argue, would pose potentially existential damages — especially in the class action context — since BIPA provides for statutory damages of $1,000 or $5,000 per violation. Parties disagree on whether BIPA damages are mandatory or discretionary, however. Should [...]

Read More

The New Lloyd’s Market Association War, Cyber War and Cyber Operation Exclusions for Cyber Insurance Policies | By Vincent J. Vitkowsky | Gfeller Laurie LLP

January 7th, 2022|Categories: Cyber Risk, Cyber Risk Litigation, Emerging Litigation & Risk, HB Emerging Law Notes, HB Risk Notes, New Featured Post for Home Page|Tags: , , , , |

The Author Vince Vitkowsky is a partner in Gfeller Laurie LLP, resident in New York. He focuses on cyber risks, liabilities, insurance, and litigation. Vince assists insurers and reinsurers in product development, and in all aspects of coverage evaluation and dispute resolution in many lines of business, including cyber, CGL, property, and professional liability. He also assists in complex claim evaluations, and if necessary, the defense of insureds in complex matters. Vince is also a member of the Editorial Advisory Board for the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation. Contact: vvitkowsky@gllawgroup.com More from Vince and his colleagues. The New LMA War, Cyber War and Cyber Operation Exclusions for Cyber Insurance Policies By Vincent J. Vitkowsky On November 25, 2021, the Lloyd’s Market Association released four War, Cyber War and Cyber Operation Exclusions (“Exclusions”). The LMA Cyber Business Panel spent well over two years drafting the Exclusions, which are models for use in standalone cyber insurance policies.  Lloyd’s has agreed that they meet the requirement that all insurance and reinsurance policies written at Lloyd’s must, except in very limited circumstances, contain a clause which excludes all losses caused by war.  The Exclusions address some difficult issues troubling the cyber insurance market for several years, following cyberattacks by nation-states (“states”) and threat actors associated [...]

Read More

Biotech Patent Wars: If at First You Don’t Succeed . . . University of California v. The Broad Institute

October 26th, 2021|Categories: Cyber Risk Litigation, HB Emerging Law Notes, HB Risk Notes, Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation|Tags: , , , , , , |

Biotech Patent Wars: If at First You Don’t Succeed . . . University of California v. The Broad Institute Abstract This case discussed in this article is about two methods of editing DNA: one that has infinitely more lucrative applications because it can edit human DNA (plus all animals and plants), another that works in cell-free environments. Whether inventions are separate or part of the same innovation is an important factor in patent interference disputes; if there are two patentably distinct inventions there cannot be interference. One party in this case lost its argument that there was only one invention at issue, but returned with a second interference claim, arguing that it was the first inventor to constructively reduce to practice the animal and plant DNA editor. In this article, the author examines the nuances and intricacies of the patent process in the world of biology, and how patent lawyers must possess a level of knowledge in disciplines related to the inventions they seek to protect. This is necessary, for example, in understanding whether an invention is a significant improvement over prior innovations. The author also shares the importance of confidentiality especially when potentially groundbreaking (and lucrative) inventions are in development. Author Adrienne B. Naumann (adriennebnaumann@uchicago.edu) practices intellectual property law at the Law Office of Adrienne B. Naumann in [...]

Read More

To Pay or Not to Pay: Does Your Insurance Policy Cover Ransomware Losses? | By Pamela Hans | Anderson Kill

October 26th, 2021|Categories: Cyber Risk, Cyber Risk Litigation, Emerging Litigation & Risk, HB Emerging Law Notes, HB Risk Notes, Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation|Tags: , , , , , , , , |

To Pay or Not to Pay: Does Your Insurance Policy Cover Ransomware Losses? Abstract Ransomware attacks are a rapidly growing threat against organizations. Paying ransom demands is a risky proposition and may even lead to sanctions against the targeted company. Either way, the damage to a company’s operation and integrity can be cripplingly severe. Should a company suffer losses from cyber extortion, its insurance company will be one of the resources it turns to for relief. But with cyber coverage increasingly out of reach for some, policyholders may find coverage in more traditional coverages. In this article, the author evaluates the potential for coverage under several policy types, and underscores the importance of understanding policy language, the relevant law, and the potential regulatory ramifications of meeting ransom demands. Author Pamela D. Hans (phans@andersonkill.com) is the managing shareholder of Anderson Kill’s Philadelphia office. Her practice concentrates on insurance coverage exclusively on behalf of policyholders. Pam is also a member of the firm’s COVID Task Group and Cyber Recovery Group. About The Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation is a co-production of HB, Fastcase, and Law Street Media. You can also hear the complementary (and complimentary) Emerging Litigation Podcast wherever podcasts appear. For questions, contact Tom Hagy, Editor in Chief, at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.

Read More

Digital Payments in Class Administration

September 9th, 2021|Categories: HB Risk Notes|Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Epiq presents DIGITAL PAYMENTS Best Practices for Efficiency in Class Actions Recorded: Sept. 23, 2020 75 minutes CLE credit: 1+ Registration includes recording, materials, and answers to your questions. TAKE IT NOW! Epiq presents a CLE-eligible webinar Digital Payments Best Practices for Efficiency in Class Actions Recorded Live | Sept. 23, 2020 produced by HB Litigation Conferences Modern life increasingly relies on digital solutions. Nothing has made that more apparent than the novel coronavirus pandemic. In terms of class action settlement payments, the impetus has never been greater to transition to the e-payment realm for security, convenience, cost-reduction, and improved fund disbursement. Class counsel and claims administrators have experimented for years with pre-paid debit cards, automated clearing house (ACH) deposits, and wire transfers, while others have tested judicial appetites for registered-user payment systems like PayPal and Venmo. However, digital payment schemes with multiple options -- the primary of which is direct deposit -- seem to be emerging as the favored solution. Though class action notice is increasingly being digitized, aided by the 2018 amendments to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, particularly Rule 23(c)(2)(B), which permits notice by electronic means like emails and digital and social media, payment itself has lagged behind. Even with these challenges, electronic payment distribution is now a viable option. Courts are [...]

Read More

Virtual Hearings: Changing Perceptions of Executive Testimony?

August 12th, 2021|Categories: Emerging Litigation & Risk, HB Emerging Law Notes, HB Risk Notes, HB Tort Notes, Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation|Tags: , , , , , , , , |

Virtual Hearings: Changing Perceptions of Executive Testimony? Abstract Given the newly acceptable ease of securing testimony via webcam—necessitated by the pandemic—this article focuses on efforts to compel the appearance of corporate executives to testify in litigation. While there are many practical advantages to virtual testimony, the authors maintain that mere convenience cannot replace legal standards of relevance and undue burden when pursing the testimony of executives. Authors Sean J. Coughlin (scoughlin@bressler.com) is a Principal in the Financial Institutions group at Bressler, Amery & Ross, P.C., where he represents institutions and individuals in regulatory investigations and defense litigation. Before joining the firm, he was an Executive Director in the legal department at Morgan Stanley, a Managing Director at Citigroup/Smith Barney, and a Senior Assistant District Attorney in the Kings County District Attorney’s office. Jacqueline R. Meyers (jmeyers@bressler.com) is an associate at Bressler, Amery & Ross, P.C., whose practice focuses on securities defense litigation, arbitration, and regulatory investigations. She has specialized experience in litigation concerning arbitrability and enforcement of arbitration awards. About The Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation is a co-production of HB, Fastcase, and Law Street Media. You can also hear the complementary (and complimentary) Emerging Litigation Podcast wherever podcasts appear. For questions, contact Tom Hagy, Editor in Chief, at Editor@LitigationConferences.com. [...]

Read More

Data Security for Small Law Firms with Ondrej Krehel and Gaspare Marturano

August 3rd, 2021|Categories: Cyber Risk, Cyber Risk Litigation, ELP, Emerging Litigation & Risk, HB Emerging Law Notes, HB Risk Notes|Tags: , , , , , |

Data Security for Small Law Firms with Ondrej Krehel and Gaspare Marturano Joining me to discuss this important issue is Ondrej Krehel, CEO & Founder of LIFARS, a New York-based incident response and digital forensics firm specializing in cybersecurity protection. Ondrej is recognized for his digital forensic expertise and ethical hacking skills. He participates in high-profile engagements around the world using his proprietary methodology to achieve the most rapid root-cause analysis and remediation. He is a former lecturer at FBI Training Academy who has led forensic investigations and cybersecurity involving the U.S. government, including military cyber special operations. He holds a Ph.D. in Computer Forensics from Police Academy in Bratislava, Slovakia, an M.S. degree in Mathematical Physics from Comenius University in Bratislava, and an Engineering Diploma from Technical University in Zvolen, Slovakia. Joining Ondrej and me is Gaspare J. Marturano, Chief Marketing Officer at LIFARS. Gaspare is a former Director of Information Systems for a large Connecticut law firm and has consulted on these issues with a number of other law firms. This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation, a collaborative project between HB Litigation Conferences and the Fastcase legal research family, which includes Full Court Press, Law Street Media, and Docket Alarm. If you have comments or wish to participate in one our projects, or want to tell me how [...]

Read More

The False Claims Act with Jack Siegal

July 28th, 2021|Categories: ELP, HB Emerging Law Notes, HB Risk Notes|Tags: , , |

The False Claims Act with Jack Siegal Joining me to discuss this important civil statute is Jack Siegal of McGlinchey Stafford in Boston. Jack's practice focuses on financial services litigation, complex commercial disputes, government investigations and white-collar defense, securities litigation, regulatory proceedings, and compliance. This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation, a collaborative project between HB Litigation Conferences and the Fastcase legal research family, which includes Full Court Press, Law Street Media, Docket Alarm and, most recently, Judicata. If you have comments or wish to participate in one our projects, or want to tell me how insightful and informative Jack is , please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com. I hope you enjoy the interview, and especially how I managed not to include Jack's answer to whether my dog could be sued for violating the FCA. "Nope. Not a person," he said, with zero hesitation. I want to thank Jack for immediately taking on the role as Shiloh's advocate, and for speaking with me about this important law.  --Tom Hagy Unscrupulous contractors have been ripping off the federal government for as long as there has been a federal government. President Lincoln, tired of being sold lame mules and rancid rations, signed the Federal Claims Act into law during The Civil War. In the last two decades the government, with the help [...]

Read More
Go to Top