Emerging Litigation Podcast
Cannabis Industry Competition Law with Ausra Deluard and Jennifer Oliver
Attorneys Ausra Deluard and Jennifer Oliver on Cannabis Industry Competition Law What can legitimate cannabis companies do to level the playing field, not only against others who walk the straight and narrow, but dealers still thriving on the black market? It was my pleasure to interview Ausra Deluard and Jennifer Oliver for what was an informative and even surprising podcast. It's based on their article -- Clearing the Haze: State Laws and Private Plaintiffs Critical to Preserve Competition in Cannabis -- which will be featured in the inaugural issue of the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation, which will release in January 2021. Ausra, who is an attorney with the global law firm Dentons LLP, has spent more than a decade advising clients in a range of antitrust matters including merger investigations, competitor collaborations, and pricing and distribution policies. She works closely with cannabis clients to help them navigate the rapidly evolving cannabis laws and regulations throughout the U.S. Jennifer is a partner at national antitrust boutique MoginRubin LLP, where she litigates and advises clients on competition issues. Her work includes representing classes of plaintiffs in class actions, risk mitigation and regulatory advice in mergers and acquisitions, and other complex business litigation. Check out the MoginRubin Blog. The Journal is a collaborative project between HB 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 awesome Ausra and Jennifer are, drop me a note at Question@LitigationConferences.com. We hope you enjoy the interview. Tom Hagy Founder & Managing Director HB Litigation Conferences
Three Urgent Consumer Class Action Topics with Paul Bland of Public Justice
Three Urgent Consumer Class Action Topics with Paul Bland of Public Justice To discuss these issues, it was my pleasure to interview F. Paul Bland, Jr., Executive Director of Public Justice, an organization that pursues "high impact lawsuits to combat social and economic injustice, protect the Earth’s sustainability, and challenge predatory corporate conduct and government abuses." Paul has argued and won more than 40 cases that led to reported decisions for consumers, employees or whistleblowers, including one victory in the U.S. Supreme Court, and has won one or more cases in six of the U.S. Courts of Appeals and the high courts of 10 different states. This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation, a collaborative project between HB 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 Paul is, please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com. We hope you enjoy the interview, and how I slipped in mention of Schrödinger's cat which, as everyone knows (that's sarcasm and self-deprecation), is a thought experiment that illustrates an apparent paradox of quantum superposition. Class actions can be an invaluable tool when consumers need to level the playing field in disputes with corporations. Two important class action cases are currently before the Supreme Court. One case, TransUnion v. Ramirez, involves innocent consumers who were erroneously added to the government's watch list for terrorists and drug smugglers. [Note: We recorded before the Supreme Court handed down its ruling that only plaintiffs concretely harmed by a defendant’s statutory violation have Article III standing to seek damages against that private defendant in federal court.] In the second, Goldman Sachs v. Arkansas Teachers, consumers seek to fend off a decision that could limit securities [...]
Sandra Cianflone on Current and Emerging COVID-19 Litigation
Sandra Cianflone on COVID-19 Litigation in 2021 and Beyond It’s now been more than 18 months since the world was besieged by the novel coronavirus pandemic. In addition to the human toll, it disrupted our lives in ways big and small, new and old, as it raced across continents, first visiting North America in January 2020. There are an estimated 15,000 lawsuits relating to the outbreak, with some 350 filings directed toward the healthcare and medical communities. The number of insurance coverage suits is fast-approaching 1,800. Litigation has been initiated against aging services, hospitals, and healthcare providers, with the next anticipated wave likely to surround vaccines themselves. What will be the basis of these claims? What defenses will we see? And what can healthcare providers do now in anticipation of this onslaught? Joining me to discuss this out-of-the-blue rash of litigation is Sandra M. Cianflone of Hall Booth Smith, P.C.  Sandie counsels and defends hospitals, physicians, nurses and institutional employees in a broad spectrum of catastrophic injury and medical malpractice cases. She received her Juris Doctorate from Pace University School of Law and her undergraduate degree from Fairleigh Dickinson University. 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 Sandie is, please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com. This podcast is based on an article she wrote for the forthcoming issues of the Journal. I hope you enjoy the interview, and especially a brief story (after we wrap up) about Sandie's experience delivering a baby in the Age of COVID-19. I also mangled a bit of basic Spanish, for which I am ashamed (lo [...]
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
HB Webinars on CeriFi LegalEdge
The Plight of the Indirect Purchaser
Consumers and businesses -- indirect purchasers of products whose prices are fixed by those who supply the maker of your purchase may not collect damages in states that -- surprisingly, do not have antitrust laws that give them standing. But what about federal law? Why do some states provide for damages and others do not? Are there alternatives?Â
The IRS and Rules About Rules
The Administrative Procedures Act outlines the rules of rule making for federal agencies. Lately it has become a focal point in tax litigation, due in large part to the IRS’s record of refusing to comply with the law's notice-and-comment mandate. Listen to learn more about recent trends in tax litigation. Get an article, too.
Does the European Union Commission’s Proposal on AI Liability Act as a Game Changer for Fault-Based Liability Regimes in the EU?
Guest Writer Does the European Union Commission’s Proposal on AI Liability Act as a Game Changer for Fault-Based Liability Regimes in the EU? By Nils Lölfing Abstract: In this article, the author discusses increasing risks that artificial intelligence system providers, developers, and users will face from a liability directive proposed by the European Union Commission. The AI Liability Directive proposed by the European Union Commission puts additional liability risks on providers, developers and users of specifically high-risk artificial intelligence (AI) systems. If enacted, it could become a game changer for fault-based liability regimes in the European Union, as it introduces a presumption of causality to prove fault and a right of access to evidence from companies and suppliers regarding high-risk AI systems. This will help victims enforce non-contractual civil law claims for damages caused by an AI system. What this is about and how it increases the liability risk exposure of actors in the AI systems supply chain will be discussed in this article. Background On September 28, 2022, the EU Commission published its proposal for a Directive to establish new fault-based liability rules for AI systems (AI Liability Directive), along with a reform for the existing rules on the strict liability of manufacturers for defective products. The current article focuses on the draft AI Liability Directive, which complements the AI Act by facilitating fault-based civil liability claims for damages, which the AI Act as specific product safety Regulation does not offer. On June 30, 2021, the EU Commission published an inception impact assessment road map on adapting civil liability rules to the digital age, in particular considering AI (based on the EU Commission’s White Paper on AI of February 19, 2020). With respect to AI in particular, the AI liability proposal is part of the approach by the EU Commission to develop an [...]
Content Partners
