Two logos side by side with Critical Legal Content in a red square on the left and HB Litigation in blue on the right

TVPRA, State Statutes Open Door for Civil Damage Claims by Human-Trafficking Victims

September 19th, 2023|Categories: Complex Business Litigation, Emerging Litigation & Risk, Employment, HB Tort Notes, Journal, Mass Torts, New Featured Post for Home Page, News|Tags: , , , , |

Since 2003, when Congress opened the door for human-trafficking victims to sue for civil damages under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 (TVPRA), the TVPRA and similarly drafted state statutes have allowed for human-trafficking victims to seek civil damages against any party that has benefited from their trafficking. Given this expansive inclusion of third-party liability, more and more businesses, especially those in the hospitality industry, are ultimately the ones left to pay for the criminal acts of human traffickers. In this article, the authors, Coryne Leyendecker and Pamela Lee discuss the evolving litigation around human-trafficking claims and offer guidance on how businesses can build a foundation for their own defense while simultaneously helping prevent human-trafficking crimes from occurring in the first place.

Read More

The Use—and Abuse—of Rule 41(a) to Destroy Federal Question Jurisdiction Post-Removal

September 14th, 2023|Categories: Complex Business Litigation, Emerging Litigation & Risk, HB Tort Notes, Journal, Mass Torts, New Featured Post for Home Page, News|Tags: , , , , |

The Authors John defends manufacturers in product liability litigation involving a range of products, e.g., ATVs, RVs, institutional chemicals, medical devices, and pharmaceuticals. From single cases to mass tort litigation and class actions, John has defended clients in courtrooms around the country. Michael is General Counsel of Thor Motor Coach Inc., a final-stage manufacturer of motor homes headquartered in Elkhart, Indiana. He is also an adjunct professor of commercial law at the Notre Dame Law School. Taryn focuses her practice on litigation. She has experience dealing with products liability, discovery issues, corporate structure and governance, wealth management, private and commercial lending, real estate, and Indian affairs for lobbying both on state and federal levels. Taryn contributed valuable research to this article. 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. The Use—and Abuse—of Rule 41(a) to Destroy Federal Question Jurisdiction Post-Removal "A plaintiff seeking to divest the court of subject matter jurisdiction post-removal should at least comply with the requirements of the rule they have relied on. Glossing over those requirements undermines the purpose and intent of both the rule and removal statutes. The case should stay put in federal court in the [...]

Read More

The Rise of Multi-Claimant Litigation in England and How Companies Can Manage Potential Exposure

June 21st, 2023|Categories: Emerging Litigation & Risk, HB Tort Notes, Journal, Mass Torts, New Featured Post for Home Page, News|Tags: , , , , |

The Authors Sheila L. Birnbaum Mark S. Cheffo Dorothy Cory-Wright Evan Flowers Jacqueline Harrington Will Sachse Stephen Surgeoner Rachel Leary Caroline Power Julie Witham 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. The Rise of Multi-Claimant Litigation in England and How Companies Can Manage Potential Exposure "With the growth in US/English partnerships for bringing multi-claimant actions in England, there may be an increased interest in leveraging US discovery for copycat English claims. The larger mass torts become in the United States, the more likely they are to feed into related multi-claimant actions in England." Abstract: Recent court decisions have signaled the English courts’ willingness to embrace multi-claimant litigation and to broaden the types of questions decided on a collective basis. These developments have led UK-based plaintiffs’ lawyers to expand mass tort filings, including doing so in partnership with US plaintiffs’ lawyers who are actively advertising in England. This article provides an overview of multi-claimant litigation in England, highlights some of the factors that may lead to its increase, and discusses steps that companies operating in the English market can take now to manage potential exposure. Three primary [...]

Read More

Litigation Funding Battle Over Litigation Control

April 26th, 2023|Categories: HB Risk Notes|Tags: , , , , |

Sysco and Burford Capital Butting Heads Over Litigation Control. Food giant claims funder is interfering with antitrust litigation. Funder says its client is settling for too little.  Public dustups over litigation funding are rare. Leading litigation funder Burford Capital LLC and food distribution giant Sysco Corp. are locking horns over the control and use of litigation funds. Burford says Sysco is settling Burford-funded antitrust litigation for amounts that deny the financial company optimal return on its investment. Sysco says the funder has overstepped its bounds and interfered with Sysco’s litigation oversight. Sysco received $140 million from Burford in part to fund price-fixing lawsuits against poultry, pork and beef producers – complex multidistrict litigation involving hundreds of plaintiffs, dozens of defendants, and related criminal suits brought by the Department of Justice (DOJ). So far, settlements of private antitrust litigation have reached into the hundreds of millions, and DOJ has levied more than $100 million in fines. Burford, which gets a share of any settlements in the antitrust litigation, says Sysco is settling for too little. Sysco has sued companies associated with Burford – Glaz LLC, Posen Investments LP, and Kenosha Investments LP – claiming they are meddling in Sysco’s settlement efforts. Glaz, Posen, and Kenosha are all companies which have Burford Capital Limited as the only direct or [...]

Read More

Greenhouse Gases Cited in Suit to Invalidate Drilling Leases

April 2nd, 2023|Categories: Complex Business Litigation, Environmental Torts, HB Risk Notes|Tags: , , , , |

Environmentalists Argue Federal Government Failed to Analyze Social Costs of Fossil Fuel Emissions from Drilling Leases “Federal public lands used for fossil fuel extraction contribute 24% of the United States’ Greenhouse Emissions,” according to 10 environmental groups in their ongoing lawsuit against the U.S. Department of the Interior, Secretary of the Interior Debra Haaland, the Bureau of Land Management (BoLM), and BoLM Director Tracy Stone-Manning (Dakota Resource or Council, et al, v. U.S. Department of the Interior, et al., D. D.C., No. 1:22-cv-1853 ). Their lawsuit seeks to invalidate 173 oil and gas leases approved in June 2022 across eight states:  Colorado, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, and Utah, and Wyoming.  Plaintiffs include: Dakota Resource Center, Center for Biological Diversity, Citizens for a Healthy Community, Living Rivers & Colorado Riverkeeper, Montana Environmental Information Center, Rio Grande Waterkeeper, Sierra Club, Waterkeeper Alliance, Western Waterheads Project, and WildEarth Guardians. The environmental groups argue the BoLM is in violation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 42 U.S.C. § 4321, for failing to make efforts to prevent or eliminate damage to the environment and biosphere. The groups also argue that Secretary Haaland failed to follow the instructions of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) 43 U.S.C. § 1701, which requires her office to “take any action necessary to prevent [...]

Read More

Conservationists Try Again to Block Drilling in Alaska’s Western Arctic

April 1st, 2023|Categories: Complex Business Litigation, Environmental Torts, HB Risk Notes|Tags: , , , , |

Willow II: Conservation Groups Sue Again to Stop Oil Project in Alaska’s Western Arctic Several conservation groups filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska against the federal government in another effort to halt the Willow Master Development Plan (Willow Oil Project), a proposed oil and gas development in Alaska’s Western Arctic. Spearheading the development is ConocoPhillips Alaska Incorporated. The project was approved for a second time by the Biden Administration only a day before the filing of the plaintiffs’ complaint. The Willow Oil Project The Willow Oil Project is a multi-billion dollar project that would involve the construction of drilling pads, pipelines, and other infrastructure in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (Reserve). The project involves drilling up to 250 wells for the purpose of generating 586 million barrels of oil within its 30-year lifespan. As a direct result of the activity, roughly 258 million metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions would be released into the atmosphere. The project has been controversial due to concerns over its potential impacts on the environment and wildlife in the area. Willow II Case History ConocoPhillips first proposed the Willow Oil Project to the Bureau of Land Management (BoLM) in May of 2018. After determining that the project was a major federally-involved action that would significantly affect the [...]

Read More

The New European Unified Patent Court with Marianne Schaffner and Thierry Lautier

March 2nd, 2023|Categories: ELP, Emerging Litigation & Risk, HB Tort Notes, Intellectual Property, Technology Law|Tags: , , , |

What's the new European patent court mean to global innovators? The European Union’s new Unified Patent Court is an international body set up by participating EU Member States to deal with the infringement and validity of both Unitary Patents and European patents. The court's objective is “putting an end to costly parallel litigation and enhancing legal certainty.” Unitary patents are intended to make it possible to get patent protection in up to 25 EU Member States by submitting a single request to the European Patent Office, making the procedure simpler and more cost effective for applicants. The new system goes live on June 1, 2023. What must U.S. and multi-national U.S.-based companies understand about the court? Why should inventors and their organizations factor it in to any existing or new patent strategy they may be developing? For answers to these questions and more listen to my interview with attorneys Marianne Schaffner and Thierry Lautier who practice out of the Paris office of Reed Smith. Marianne heads the intellectual Property team in Paris and the patent practice in Europe. She manages complex national and transnational patent, trade secrets and trademark disputes in the healthcare, chemistry, technology and telecommunications sectors. Thierry is part of the firm’s global Intellectual Property Group. With a dual legal and engineering/scientific background, Thierry uses his understanding, knowledge, and experience to provide clients with [...]

Read More

Autonomous Vehicles: The New Technology Driving the Litigation Conversation

February 24th, 2023|Categories: Emerging Litigation & Risk, Insurance, Journal, New Featured Post for Home Page, News, Technology Law|Tags: , , , , |

The Authors Cort T. Malone (cmalone@andersonkill.com) is a shareholder in the New York and Stamford offices of Anderson Kill and practices in the Insurance Recovery and the Corporate and Commercial Litigation Departments. An experienced litigator, he focuses on insurance coverage litigation and dispute resolution, with an emphasis on commercial general liability insurance, directors and officers insurance, employment practices liability insurance, advertising injury insurance, and property insurance issues. John M. Leonard (jleonard@andersonkill.com) is a shareholder in Anderson Kill’s New York, New York, office, where he handles a full spectrum of insurance coverage matters, such as business interruption losses, D&O and E&O, commercial general liability, environmental liability. Joshua A. Zelen (jzelen@andersonkill.com) is a law clerk pending admission in Anderson Kill’s New York office. He focuses his practice on insurance recovery. 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. Autonomous Vehicles: The New Technology Driving the Litigation Conversation "The AEV Act requires a policyholder’s insurance company to cover third-party damage caused by a self-driving automated vehicle. A policy may not exclude such damages, except for damages suffered as a direct result of software alterations made without the policyholder’s knowledge, or failure to install safety-critical software [...]

Read More

Labor Organizing in Retail: Conditions Remain for Continued Momentum

February 24th, 2023|Categories: Emerging Litigation & Risk, Employment, Journal, New Featured Post for Home Page, News|Tags: , , , , |

The Authors Amber is Board Certified in Labor & Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, and is a trial lawyer who has extensive experience representing and advising clients in traditional labor relations, such as collective bargaining, representation elections, decertification elections, unfair labor practice charges, arbitrating grievances, contract administration and interpretation, and union avoidance strategies. Amber’s litigation experience includes regularly representing clients in wage and hour collective and class actions, trade secrets and post-employment restrictive covenant disputes, and complex employment discrimination. As a part of Amber’s partnership with clients to avoid litigation, she frequently conducts and coordinates sensitive corporate investigations, and provides training presentations for clients on a multitude of topics. Kurt helps businesses of all sizes solve their complex labor and employment challenges. He counsels clients on all aspects of labor-management relations, including representation elections, collective bargaining and strikes and lockouts, and also advises clients in strategic employment and human relations matters. Kurt litigates labor and employment cases in federal and state trial and appellate courts around the country and before the NLRB and EEOC. Kurt is a recognized thought leader in the area of traditional labor-management relations. He has been recognized as a leader in Labor and Employment by Chambers USA Virginia and as a 2022 Top 10 Labor Lawyer by Benchmark Litigation. [...]

Read More

Modernizing Our Court System (but Don’t Attend Trial from Your Car) with Hon. Scott Schlegel

February 15th, 2023|Categories: ELP, Emerging Litigation & Risk, HB Tort Notes|Tags: , , , , |

The judicial system is overburdened for a number of reasons, and greater efficiency is a must if court systems are to achieve their important objectives. Technology and openness to all that it offers is a key solution, something that was tried, tested and proven during the Covid pandemic which closed courthouses and law offices around the nation. Along with technology, improvements can be made by reexamining their orthodoxies about how things should be done based on decades of "that's how we've always done it." This is a matter of importance to judges, lawyers, plaintiffs, defendants, and numerous others whose lives are impacted directly or indirectly when either the civil or criminal justice systems are inefficient, cumbersome, costly, confusing, slow, and even inaccessible. If only we had an example of at least one judge who is trying to do something about it. But wait ... Listen to my interview with the Hon. Scott Schlegel who presides over criminal civil and domestic matters in Louisiana's 24th Judicial District Court in Jefferson Parish. Judge Schlegel was elected to the bench in 2013, and quickly earned a reputation as a modern judge using technology to bring his court into the digital age, even before the pandemic forced the change on other jurists. He partnered with tech companies to develop efficiency tools like chat bots and [...]

Read More

Class Certification Evidence: Standards of Admissibility and Probative Value Among the Circuits

February 15th, 2023|Categories: Class Actions, CLE OnDemand, Emerging Issues Webinars, Emerging Litigation & Risk, HB Tort Notes, Mass Torts|Tags: , , , , |

Class Certification Evidence What Are the Standards of Admissibility and Probative Value Among the Circuits? Numerous splits exist among the circuits on two key certification issues: What is required to prove the elements for class certification and whether plaintiff's certification evidence must be admissible. Further, courts apply different admissibility standards to fact evidence than to expert evidence. Certain courts have issued clear guidance on these important issues, while others have remained circumspect, sending mixed signals. This is particularly vexing for defendants, who may be sued in more than one district or circuit. What is sufficient for class certification in one jurisdiction may be inadequate in another. With standards unsettled, counsel must anticipate and preserve the right to revisit class certification by preserving all objections and the factual record. Listen as the panel of class action attorneys discusses the standards of admissibility of evidence at certification and best strategies for leveraging ambiguities. Questions Addressed How can defense counsel preserve objections to admissibility? How can counsel leverage the law of other circuits in jurisdictions with no controlling precedent? What does how a court assesses evidence imply about its view on admissibility standards? Webinar Outline Fact evidence Need not be admissible Must be admissible Ambiguous Expert evidence Full Daubert analysis Limited Daubert analysis Strategies for managing and leveraging the uncertainty A Strafford production specially selected [...]

Read More

Greatly Exaggerated: The Impact of Bankruptcy on Mass Torts with Jennifer Hoekstra

January 12th, 2023|Categories: ELP, Emerging Litigation & Risk, HB Tort Notes|Tags: , , , , |

When large companies face massive mass tort litigation, one way they can survive is to file for bankruptcy protection and reorganize.  3M recently put its Aearo Technologies subsidiary into bankruptcy in the face of more than 230,000 claims that's its defective earplugs caused hearing loss.  When it came to filing bankruptcy 3M said Aearo was solely responsible for the product. But for several years of litigation 3M argued that it, as the parent, was solely responsible, not its various subsidiaries. That was a strategy that was beneficial to the company in multidistrict litigation. Why did 3M suddenly change course? What impact does bankruptcy have on claimants? Could corporations use bankruptcy law to neuter mass tort litigation for all eternity?  And how did the strategy sit with the federal magistrate judge overseeing the multidistrict litigation? Joining me to discuss this incredibly complex litigation is Jennifer M. Hoekstra, a partner with Aylstock Witkin Kreis & Overholtz. Jennifer has been involved in all varieties of complex litigation since 2007, focusing on mass torts, drug and device litigation, and others.  She has a J.D. from Tulane, which she earned while also completing a certificate in Environmental Law. She has actively served as trial counsel or an integral member of the trial team in several of the 3M Earplug trials securing nearly $300 million in compensatory damages [...]

Read More
Go to Top