DARN! Nothing here. Apologies.
Emerging Litigation Podcast
The False Claims Act with Jack Siegal
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 of whistleblowers, has raked in more than $20 billion.
Cryptocurrency with Stephen Palley
Cryptocurrency with Stephen Palley Joining me to discuss this paradigm-shattering model is Anderson Kill Partner Stephen D. Palley, a seasoned trial lawyer and litigator with extensive experience in complex commercial disputes like insurance recovery, securities litigation, and corporate governance. Stephen has significant hands-on software development and design experience. Based in the firm’s D.C. office, he is co-chair of its cross-disciplinary blockchain and virtual currency group. At several points during our conversation I referred to an article co-written by Stephen and his New York colleague Joshua Gold, titled Protecting Cryptocurrency Assets. Stephen earned his J.D. from Washington University, his M.A. from the University of Delaware, and his B.A. (cum laude) from Tufts University (Go Jumbos!). 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 Stephen is, please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com. I hope you enjoy the interview, especially when Leo, my cat, knocked over my microphone and when Stephen educated me on the existence of the Weird Beard Festival and other whisker-based celebrations. --Tom Hagy Cryptocurrency assets now exceed $1.5 trillion globally. What a great innovation, as is the magic that makes these transactions possible. Of course, I’m talking about blockchain. The possibilities are endless on both counts. No central authority. No regulators. But (there’s always a but), thanks to the world’s miscreants, desperados and other baddies there is escalating potential for theft of these assets whether they are held in Bitcoin or other forms of digital currency. What should businesses consider if they plan to invest in virtual assets? How might they mitigate risk? What security measures should they have [...]
How Artificial Intelligence is Changing Litigation and Even Preventing it with Arthur Crivella
How Artificial Intelligence is Changing Litigation and Even Preventing it with Arthur Crivella Artificial intelligence has the capability to truly revolutionize how litigators work, and also how companies can avoid litigation in the first place. It can not only do the work of hundreds of people in mere seconds but can be used to predict liabilities before they become liabilities, and outcomes when disputes arise. Joining me to discuss the incredible present-day applications of AI in law and business, as well as the potential to do much more if humans will let it, is Arthur Crivella of Crivella Technologies Limited. For decades Art has been a leader in developing and applying advanced software engineering, systems engineering and AI methodologies, and holds numerous foundation patents in the field. Art has helped create nationally recognized engineering achievements in weaponry as well as in the metals, rubber and food industries. He was principal design engineer in developing advanced weapons direction systems and wrap-around simulation systems for naval guided missiles. Crivella Tech supports corporations in managing risk and law firms in assessing liabilities. The company also supports law firms in class action and mass tort litigation. 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 Art is, please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com. I hope you enjoy the interview, particularly my observation that you cannot hurt a robot's feelings. --Tom Hagy
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
Taking the High Ground: Where Cannabis Insurance Litigation Is Trending (and Why)
The Authors 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. Jihee Ahn is an experienced complex commercial litigator with Harris Bricken. She also chairs the firm’s Dispute Resolution/Litigation practice. Interviews with leading attorneys and other subject matter experts on new twists in the law and how the law is responding to new twists in the world. Taking the High Ground: Where Cannabis Insurance Litigation Is Trending (and Why) "Absent a choice of law provision, the location where most of the insured activity took place will likely dictate which law applies. But how have federal courts reacted to applying cannabis-friendly state law in a forum where federal law arguably addresses underlying state concerns? The answer is: inconsistently." Abstract: The use and possession of cannabis remains illegal under the federal Controlled Substances Act. But a patchwork of state laws is bringing the country closer to some form of legalization. Some states allow its use for medical purposes, others have made it legal for recreational purposes, and others have decriminalized it. But when cannabis is involved in disputes that lead to litigation, and that litigation leads to policyholder–insurer disputes, that state law patchwork and the illegality of cannabis under federal law is when things get complicated. This tension plays out in several other aspects of running a cannabis business, such as banking and interstate transportation of goods. In this article, the authors discuss how it is up to litigators to frame their cases in ways that will determine the outcome of important disputes over insurance coverage. Introduction: Like several other litigation issues presented by the (legal) emerging cannabis market in the United States, insurance disputes between cannabis policyholders and their insurers remain [...]
Workplace Investigations: Proactive Assessments Mitigate the Risk of Costly Litigation in a Newly Remote Environment
The Author Stefani C Schwartz is Senior Managing Partner at the Hatfield Schwartz Law Group LLC. She has devoted her career to representing and advising employers in the complete spectrum of employment law, including discrimination, harassment, retaliation, and wrongful termination. Stefani is a member of the Editorial Advisory Board of the Journal of Emerging Issues in Litigation. Interviews with leading attorneys and other subject matter experts on new twists in the law and how the law is responding to new twists in the world. Workplace Investigations: Proactive Assessments Mitigate the Risk of Costly Litigation in a Newly Remote Environment "Investigations are a straightforward, efficient, and effective way to combat the risk of litigation because they reflect the best aspects of the employer–employee relationship: understanding, respect, communication, and shared goals." Abstract: “Bullying, discrimination, sexual harassment and other forms of workplace misconduct can create a crisis for any company—and trying to ignore or cover it up will make a bad situation worse.” That’s the warning from a December 2021 article for Forbes, which goes on to say that in addition the damage to an employer’s reputation, a study by workplace misconduct reporting service Vault Platform found that workplace misconduct cost U.S. businesses more than $20 billion in 2021. In this article, the author discusses how proactively conducting workplace investigations can reduce an employer’s risk of winding up in court and paying the considerable tangible and intangible costs of misconduct, a risk further complicated by an increasingly home-based workforce. Excerpt: During the past two years, the COVID-19 pandemic has introduced new factors in the ever-shifting area of employer liability: large-scale layoffs and furloughs, the introduction and/or expansion of possibilities for remote work, the drive for a safe return to the physical workplace, and the dual needs for vaccination and accommodation of religious objectors [...]
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 [...]
HB Webinars on CeriFi LegalEdge
Content Partners
