Emerging Litigation Podcast
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 [...]
What Businesses and Lawyers Should Know About the U.S./China Relationship
Our Guest Dan Harris is a leading authority on the legal and strategic aspects of conducting business in emerging markets. He is co-founder of the international practice of Seattle-based HarrisBricken, which has offices across the U.S., as well as in China, Spain, Mexico, and Brazil. His China Law Blog was named, and with good reason, to the ABA Journal’s “Blawg Hall of Fame.” Forbes, Business Week, Fortune, The BBC, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, The Economist, CNBC, The New York Times, and many other major media players have looked to him for his perspective on international law issues. Dan writes and speaks extensively on international law with a focus on protecting businesses in their foreign operations and he has had the rare honor of being designated a “Super Lawyer.” He is also a member of the Editorial Board of Advisors for the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation and the Emerging Litigation Podcast. What Businesses and Lawyers Should Know About the U.S. / China Relationship “Americans mistakenly believe that China operates as a rational economic actor and that economics is their highest priority. It’s not and it never has been. Their highest priority is whatever is good for the Chinese Communist Party.” “Chinese companies view American and EU companies as very risky, in large part because so many American and EU companies are looking to move their manufacturing out of China.” A major potential avalanche of risks are those that would shake the business world should – as some expect it will – trade relations between China, and America and EU, come to an end. China is America’s largest trading partner, a relationship responsible for $600B a year in commerce, according to the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative. By comparison, U.S. / European Union trade exceeds $1T. The trade [...]
Insurance Coverage for PFAS Claims
PFAS Insurance Coverage with Robert D. Chesler of Anderson Kill Listen to my interview with Anderson Kill's Robert D. Chesler, a preeminent expert on insurance coverage law especially in the context of highly complex long-tail claims scenarios involving multiple parties and events that can span decades and always cost many millions of dollars. Considered by many to be an insurance guru on these cases -- as well as on D&O, cyber and privacy, and intellectual property insurance -- Bob holds a Ph.D. and masters degree from Princeton University, and a J.D. (cum laude) from Harvard Law School. This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation, and Bob is one of our most valued editorial advisors. The Journal is a collaborative project between HB Litigation Conferences and the Fastcase legal research family, which includes Full Court Press, Law Street Media, and Docket Alarm. The podcast itself is a joint effort between HB and our friends at Law Street Media. If you have comments or wish to participate in one our projects, or want to tell me how much you learned from Bob, please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com. Tom Hagy Host and Litigation Enthusiast P.S. The fact that I make myself laugh during these interviews probably has less to do with the subject matter (most definitely, is more precise) or my sense of humor, and more to do with cabin fever. Or I'm just nuts. The PFAS family of chemicals is one stubborn bunch. They are a class of man-made products dubbed "forever chemicals," because of the difficulty of removing them from the environment, humans, and other animals. They are also at the center of sprawling litigation around the country involving alleged property damage, water contamination, and bodily injury. More than 1,500 cases are consolidated in closely-watched multi-district litigation in federal court in South Carolina. Listen to [...]
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.
Emerging Litigation Journal
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 GalleryAnalysis 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
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
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 lawsuits against Target, which were consolidated, along with various consumer suits, in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, in In re: Target Corporation Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, All Financial Institutions Cases, MDL No. 14-2522 (the “Issuing Banks Litigation”). In their Consolidated Class Action Complaint, the Issuing Banks asserted various causes of action against Target, including a claim for negligence by which they alleged that Target breached its duty to implement adequate technical systems or security practices that could have prevented the loss of customers’ sensitive personal and financial [...]
Flying Cameras: Gaps in Drone Regulation and How Courts Can Fill Them … at Least for Now
Authors With deep experience in the law and regulation of unmanned aerial vehicles, Kathryn practices in the Providence, R.I., offices of Robinson+Cole. She is a member of the firm’s groups that focus on business litigation, data privacy and security, and drone compliance. Kathryn is also a member of the Editorial Board of Advisors for the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation and the Emerging Litigation Podcast. Blair Robinson is a cybersecurity intern at Robinson+Cole. She will graduate in 2023 with a J.D. from the Roger Williams University School of Law to complement her Masters of Science degree in Cybersecurity also from Roger Williams University. Get CLE Flying Cameras: Gaps in Drone Regulation and How Courts Can Fill Them … at Least for Now Drones have rapidly transformed dozens of industries since hitting the commercial market. International aid groups use medical drones to deliver life-saving medications and vaccines to remote areas. Agricultural drones have revolutionized how farmers tend their fields. Film and television producers embrace drones for their ability to capture once prohibitively expensive or outright impossible camera shots. Hobbyists love the technology for a variety of recreational purposes. However, as drones have become increasingly commonplace, lawmakers and policymakers have struggled with effectively regulating this emerging domain. In addition, no federal law, state law, or industry best practice adequately addresses the unique privacy and cybersecurity risks drone operations pose. Until federal regulation catches up with the technology, lawyers could move courts to mitigate the issue by arguing for strict liability for drone operators and manufacturers. Although drones may seem like traditional aircraft, they actually pose unique privacy concerns. Drone systems rely on real-time and simultaneous data exchanges between the operator, GPS positioning, cloud-based processing and telemetry, and the drone itself. Each facet in such a complex system presents a new opportunity for attackers. Besides the vulnerability [...]
Full Ninth Circuit Removes Unwarranted Hurdles to Class Certification
The Authors Co-founding partner at MoginRubin LLP, Jonathan Rubin focuses his legal practice exclusively on antitrust and competition law and policy. Based in Washington, DC, he has litigated and led trial teams in major antitrust cases throughout the country. 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, and the American Antitrust Institute. Dan Mogin, founding and managing partner of MoginRubin LLP, concentrates his practice on antitrust, unfair competition and complex business litigation. He has served as lead counsel in numerous large antitrust cases, chaired the Antitrust Section of the California Bar, taught antitrust law and was editor-in-chief of a leading competition law treatise. 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. Jonathan Rubin, Dan Mogin. 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 of the FTC Act Podcast: Algorithmic Software Facilitated Price Fixing with Jonathan Rubin Plus, additional insights from the MoginRubin Blog. Full Ninth Circuit Removes Unwarranted Hurdles to Class Certification “Nothing in Rule 23 suggests that the presence of more than a de minimis number of uninjured class members affects whether questions affecting only individual class [...]
HB Webinars on CeriFi LegalEdge
Litigators, YES Litigators: One Attorney’s Journey Within and Without the Legal Industry
In this episode, we discuss all the things one former litigator, Somya Kaushik, Senior Corporate Counsel at Mineral and Adjunct Professor of Law at Lewis & Clark Law School has done, and the advantages she feels a litigator can bring to a small company – one that isn’t embroiled in litigation (and would like to keep it that way). As she notes, "a litigator is well-positioned to identify actual but often overlooked legal risks, effectively mitigating issues and reducing both business and legal risks". Listen and learn more!
Cracking the College Sports “Cartel”: Good for Athletes, Competition, and the Games by Joy Sidhwa and Tim LaComb
Momentum in the national debate over whether a college athlete should profit from licensing deals for their “names, images, and likenesses,” or NILs, swung in favor of players on June 21, 2021, when the Supreme Court ruled for the athletes in NCAA v. Alston. Authors Joy Sidhwa and Tim LaComb of MoginRubin, LLP discuss the impacts of the decision and subsequent court decisions and state legislation which have further cemented and defined the changing amateurism rules in college sports. As the authors note, "the ultimate test of whether amateurism drives demand will come after new state laws allow compensation unrelated to education. If compensation doesn’t trigger a drop in demand, the NCAA will lose its procompetitive justification for the restriction and likely bring an end to amateurism rules".
Massive Mass Tort Settlements and Liability Forecasting
In this episode, we discuss Liability Forecasting and the role it plays in the administration of massive, sometimes multi-billion-dollar mass tort settlement trusts with guests Mark Eveland and Ed Silverman of Verus LLC, which provides litigation support services to law firms working on mass torts, such as case management and medical review services, settlement administration, business and advisory services, and analytics. Liability forecasting mechanisms were built to fairly and judiciously compensate current and future claimants for their injuries. Listen and learn more!
Content Partners
