Emerging Litigation Podcast
Antiracism and Antitrust with Eric Cramer
Our Guest Eric Cramer is Chairman of the Firm and Co-Chair of the Firm’s antitrust department. He has a national practice in the field of complex litigation, primarily in the area of antitrust class actions. He is currently co-lead counsel in multiple significant antitrust class actions across the country in a variety of industries and is responsible for winning numerous significant settlements for his clients totaling well over $3 billion. Mr. Cramer is also a frequent speaker at antitrust and litigation related conferences and a leader of multiple non-profit advocacy groups. He was the only Plaintiffs’ lawyer selected to serve on the American Bar Association’s Antitrust Section Transition Report Task Force delivered to the incoming Obama Administration in 2012. Antiracism and Antitrust with Eric Cramer Among the legal and regulatory avenues one might follow to mitigate the impact of racism, most of us would look to various manifestations of discrimination law in employment, lending, real estate, education, healthcare, voting rights, and other categories. When presented in those contexts, the anti-racism objectives are clear. There are several federal laws and many state laws that prohibit anticompetitive behavior. At the top of the heap is the Sherman Antirust Act of 1890, which outlaws illegal monopolies and anticompetitive tactics, conspiracies to restrain trade, cartels and syndicates. But what do wages, including those paid to minorities, have to do with antitrust? What about no-poach agreements, whereby groups of companies agree not to hire employees away from each other? The answer is "quite a lot." Listen to my interview with Eric Cramer, Chairman of Berger Montague and co-chair of the firm's antitrust department, a team that handles antitrust class actions across the country involving a variety of industries. Eric and the firm are responsible for winning numerous significant settlements for clients -- a total value that now exceeds [...]
Cannabis Coverage Litigation with John McDonald and Jihee Ahn
Our Guests John B. McDonald is an experienced litigator practicing in the Seattle and New York offices of Harris Bricken, where he represents clients in complex commercial, insurance, and partnership matters. Prior to joining Harris Bricken, John spent two years in Seattle with the Office of Chief Counsel, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (a component agency of the Department of Homeland Security), and five years in New York City at O’Melveny & Myers LLP, where he managed several cases. John graduated from the University of Miami School of Law, where he was an editorial member of the University of Miami Law Review. He also served as a research assistant for Professor Charlton Copeland on civil procedure and constitutional issues. Jihee is an experienced complex commercial litigator and chair of Harris Bricken’s Dispute Resolution/Litigation practice. She primarily represents clients in business, intellectual property, and real estate matters for both domestic and international clients. Having worked extensively in both federal and state courts, Jihee advises her clients from case intake through arbitration and trial. Over the course of her career, she has successfully prepared and argued numerous procedural and substantive motions, regularly conducted and defended depositions, and mediated disputes when appropriate for her clients. Prior to joining Harris Bricken, Jihee worked at Baker & Hostetler in Los Angeles, where she served as the lead attorney on several cases and mentored junior associates. Jihee graduated from the UCLA School of Law with a Business Law and Policy Specialization, and she served as a research assistant to Professor Sung Hui Kim on securities regulation issues throughout her third year of law school. Prior to relocating to Buffalo, Erin spent the bulk of her career to-date in Boston, where she worked in stewardship at Harvard University and as a consultant for nonprofits of all sizes. Cannabis Coverage Litigation: [...]
Takeaways from the SEC’s $100M Fine Against FinTech Lender BlockFi
Our Guest Brad is a partner in the Greenville, South Carolina, office of Nelson Mullins Riley and Scarborough where he chairs the firm’s Financial Services Regulatory Practice, leading a team of attorneys in a national practice representing clients in financial regulatory and FinTech matters. He is a valued member of the Editorial Board of Advisors for the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation, a companion to this podcast. Takeaways from the SEC's $100M Fine Against FinTech Lender BlockFi So, apparently this is true: Running a lending operation without registering with the SEC makes them crabby. Spoiler Alert: On Valentine’s Day this year the SEC announced a $100 million fine against retail crypto lender BlockFi Lending. Nothing says "will you be mine?" like a nine-figure bill -- for that special someone who has everything. The company agreed to put an end to some of its offers and sales, and to get to work bringing itself into compliance with, you know, the law, like the Securities Act of 1933 and the Investment Company Act of 1940. So, what does the SEC want companies to do? What remedies does the SEC have for unregistered securities offerings? What impact will this have on private litigation? Is there a risk that BlockFi Interest Account investors will have claims against BlockFi? Want to find out? Listen to my interview with attorney Brad Rustin. Brad is a partner in the Greenville, South Carolina, office of Nelson Mullins Riley and Scarborough where he chairs the firm’s Financial Services Regulatory Practice, leading a team of attorneys in a national practice representing clients in financial regulatory and FinTech matters. This is Brad’s third appearance on the podcast! He spoke on one episode about the Impact of the Russia Sanctions on Global Financial Markets, and on another popular episode on the Gamification of Stock Trading. Brad is [...]
A Shameless Plug for Our Content Services
Your content marketing is everything you’ve ever dreamed of. Right?
Sara is marketing director at a boutique law firm. When we asked her how their blog was going, she made a sad face. But then, we made Sara smile.*
Critical Legal Content was founded by Tom Hagy, former Editor & Publisher of Mealey’s Litigation Reports and VP at LexisNexis, founder of HB, current litigation podcaster and editor-in-chief. CLC’s mission is to help smaller firms and service providers not only create content — blogs, articles, papers, webinars, podcasts (like the stuff on this site) — but also to get it out there. How? Via social media, this website, your website, and potential via our podcast and journal which we publish in collaboration with vLex Fastcase and Law Street Media. The goal is to attract readers and dizzy them with your brilliance.
*Inspired by actual events.
Create content like a real legal publisher.
Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation
Cybersecurity and Data Privacy Year in Review 2021
The Authors The authors are all attorneys with the Kennedys law firm (kennedyslaw.com). Joshua Mooney (joshua.mooney@kennedyslaw) and Judy Selby (judy.selby@kennedyslaw.com) are partners. Tracey Kline (tracey.kline@kennedyslaw.com) and Alexis Childs (alexis.childs@kennedyslaw.com) are associates. Bridget Mead, associate, and Javier Vijil, senior associate, also contributed to this article. Judy Selby is also a member of the Editorial Board of Advisors for the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation. Cybersecurity and Data Privacy 2021 in Review By Joshua Mooney, Judy Selby, Tracey Kline, and Alexis Childs Abstract: As the world emerged from lockdown, it should come as no surprise that cybersecurity and data privacy remained dominant topics in the media and legal industry. Some of 2021 was much like 2020—ransomware attacks continued to fill the headlines, and in the aggregate, constituted significant loss paid under cyber insurance policies. OFAC reminded victim companies and incident response firms (and cyber carriers) that it remains unlawful to pay ransom payments to designated organizations. Comprehensive federal legislation addressing cyber defenses and notification requirements never materialized. Yet in 2021, we saw new and significant developments. U.S. law continued its drift toward comprehensive privacy regulation with two new significant pieces of privacy legislation and California’s enforcement of the California Consumer Privacy Act. In the absence of federal legislation, federal agencies either stepped up enforcement actions or signaled that they intend to do so within their realms of governance. Litigation under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act continued its surge while the Illinois high courts rendered two impactful decisions and a circuit court punted to Illinois’s highest court. This review provides a brief synopsis of many events and developments that made the authors' list. Perhaps one of the most significant developments in U.S. privacy law for 2021 was the enactment of comprehensive data privacy laws in Virginia and Colorado. Both pieces of legislation, which [...]
Climate Change, ESG, and D&O Insurance: Collision or Cooperation?
The Authors Robert D. Chesler (rchesler@andersonkill.com) is a shareholder in Anderson Kill’s New Jersey office and is a member of the firm’s Cyber Insurance Recovery Group. Bob represents policyholders in a broad variety of coverage claims against their insurers and advises companies with respect to their insurance programs. Dennis J. Artese (dartese@andersonkill.com) is a shareholder in Anderson Kill’s New York office and chairs the firm’s Climate Change and Disaster Recovery Group. Joseph Vila (jvila@andersonkill.com) is an insurance recovery attorney in Anderson Kill’s New Jersey office. Climate Change, ESG, and D&O Insurance: Collision or Cooperation? By Robert D. Chesler, Dennis J. Artese, and Joseph Villa Abstract: Climate change has been tied to the recent increase in catastrophic weather events. Insurance coverage for often billions of dollars in damage becomes a source of argument between insurers, who want to limit their exposure, and policyholders, who want the coverage they argue the carriers are contractually obligated to pay. The authors discuss the nature of the underlying suits and the potential coverage issues; the types of policies implicated; cases that have addressed these issues; the rising societal concern over climate change that have played a role in the new corporate emphasis on environmental, social, and governance, or ESG, and the insurance industry’s response to this trend. Excerpts: Directors and Officers (D&O) policies [are] directly affected by climate change. Two types of suits are already happening. First, there are at least 1,375 climate change–related suits pending in the United States, about two dozen of which have been filed by local municipalities and states seeking damages because of climate change. For example, the attorneys general of New York, Massachusetts, and the U.S. Virgin Islands launched investigations to determine whether Exxon Mobil Corporation misrepresented to investors the risks of how climate change might impact its business. Although the U.S. Virgin [...]
The Shifting Gun Liability Landscape: Plaintiffs Say Companies are Marketing Illegally, Insurers End Up Paying
The Author Charlie spent more than four decades with General Reinsurance, three-quarters of which as the company’s Emerging Issues Officer. One colleague described him as “one of the most prescient and gifted industry futurists I have met in my 36 year professional career within the insurance industry. Entertaining and insightful, his ability to digest and communicate complex issues, many before they are readily apparent, is both a gift and a talent.” Charlie is also a member of the Editorial Board of Advisors for the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation. The Shifting Gun Liability Landscape: Plaintiffs Say Companies are Marketing Illegally, Insurers End Up Paying By Charlie Kingdollar On Feb. 15, 2022, Remington Arms, manufacturer of the Bushmaster AR15-style rifle agreed to pay $73 million to settle a lawsuit filed by the families of nine of the victims of the Dec. 14, 2012, Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. The $73 million will be paid by four of Remington’s insurers (and likely their reinsurers).[i] Why is this a big deal? Insurers and reinsurers providing liability coverage for gun manufacturers did so believing that federal law protected gun manufacturers from liability arising from shootings under the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA). It seems likely that policy terms and conditions as well as pricing of the risk reflected that perceived liability protection. Things have changed. The Connecticut plaintiffs filed their suit under the Connecticut Fair Trade Practices Act. The plaintiffs alleged that the Bushmaster was a combat weapon and that Remington improperly marketed it to civilians – particularly trying to reach young men. In 2019, the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled that the federal PLCAA did have some carve-outs for state laws and subsequently declined Remington’s request to dismiss the lawsuit. It seems a safe bet that the families of other Connecticut gun violence victims [...]
HB Webinars on the West LegalEdcenter
Content Partners
