HB Partner Webinars on the West LegalEdcenter
Take these CLE webinars on the West LegalEdcenter platform. Each program features leading litigators in their respective fields on emerging subjects. Speakers and topics are handpicked by HB. Your organization may have already subscribed to the platform, but each session is also available for individual purpose. For questions or if you wish to propose a webinar, write to us at: Webinars@LitigationConferences.com.
Biotech, Life Sciences, Food & Drug News from NLR
Biotech, Life Sciences, Food & Drug News from National Law Review
Susan E. Brice and Vince Angermeier on Causation in Toxic Torts
Susan E. Brice and Vince Angermeier on Causation in Toxic Torts Abstract Concepts of “substantial factors,” “any exposure,” and “de minimis” contact have long-supported claims brought by toxic tort plaintiffs against manufacturers. They have furthered tort actions against defendants based on the “cumulative expo-sure” theory, particularly in the asbestos arena, even when a single fiber could not be connected to a specific defendant. But a 2017 Seventh Circuit decision dealing with Illinois law is part of a trend toward tightening up these standards. This article discusses the various cases on this threshold issue as the authors ponder whether this is a movement that needs some pushing. Authors Susan E. Brice (sb@nijmanfranzetti.com) is a partner at Nijman Franzetti, LLP. She has litigated state and federal disputes and has counseled clients on complicated scientific issues arising in environmental law, toxic torts, and product liability. Susan works with scientists on matters in the fields of genomics, toxicology, and epidemiology in industries such as chemical manufacturing, energy production, food, agriculture, and real estate. Vince Angermeier (va@nijmanfranzetti.com) is Of Counsel at Nijman Franzetti, LLP, where he concentrates his work on CERCLA, EPCRA, RCRA, and Clean Water Act matters, a practice enhanced by his environmental engineering experience. Vince has assisted on civil litigation, administrative rulemakings, regulatory and compliance matters involving water, solid waste, and EPCRA reporting issues. About The Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation is a co-production of HB, Fastcase, and Law Street Media. You can also hear the complementary (and complimentary) Emerging Litigation Podcast wherever podcasts appear. For questions, contact Tom Hagy, Editor in Chief, at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.
Vince Vitkowsky on Insurance Coverage for Civil Unrest
Vince Vitkowsky on Insurance Coverage for Civil Unrest Civil unrest. Peaceful protests. Massive marches. Riots. Looting. Which of these things are not like the other? Recent social outrage over police shootings of Black people -- these events in particular -- have sent people to the streets by hundreds of thousands. In some cases these constitutionally protected activities are followed by property damage, injury and death. Observers continue to debate who is responsible for the violence. Whatever the answer, as a very practical matter, someone has to pay for the property damage. Join me for my conversation with Vince Vitkowsky of Gfeller Laurie LLP. Vince possesses deep knowledge of insurance coverage matters, representing carriers in a variety of areas, e.g. cyber risk, data privacy, general liability, directors and officers liability, health, and more. He combines his experience as a veteran insurance and reinsurance lawyer with a strong background in terrorism and national security law. 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 Vince is , please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com. I hope you enjoy the interview, and how deftly we obscured the fact that Vince lives in New York City.
Kathryn Hatfield on Labor Law in 2021
Kathryn Hatfield on Labor Law in 2021 Participation in labor unions is less than half of what it was 40 years ago. It has seen an uptick in the service sector, but a sharp decline in manufacturing. According to Heidi Shierholz -- former chief economist at the Department of Labor, now senior economist and policy director at the Economic Policy Institute -- decline in union rolls is partly responsible for today's yawning income inequality gap. Recently we've seen the formation of a modest union at Google and a movement among Amazon workers. We've also seen how the pandemic has shone a bright light on the fragility of our nation's workforce struggling to survive at the bottom rungs of the pay scale. Joining me to speak about these issues is Kathryn Van Deusen Hatfield, a senior managing partner at Hatfield Schwartz Law Group in New Jersey. Kathy represents private and public sector employers in all aspects of labor and employment law, with expertise in litigating state and federal cases on behalf of employers involving Title VII, the ADA, the ADEA and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, and providing legal opinions and advice on personnel, employment and labor issues. Kathy shares her insights on recent developments in the labor movement, some of the causes of its decline, how unions get a bad rap, and how, even though she represents management, she believes unions can be a good thing for everyone -- employees and companies alike. 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 Kathy is, [...]
Melicent Thompson on Coverage for Covid-19 Business Income Losses
Melicent B. Thompson on COVID-19 Coverage Abstract COVID-19 indisputably has taken an enormous economic toll. Governmental shutdown orders early in the pandemic and ongoing restrictions on business’ operations have resulted in a flood of claims for insurance coverage for business income losses attributable to those orders and restrictions. This article reviews the litigation and legislative developments directed at attempting to find insurance coverage for such losses and the reasons why those efforts have been unsuccessful for the most part. Author Melicent B. Thompson (mthompson@gllawgroup.com) is a Partner with the law firm Gfeller Laurie, LLP, in West Hartford, Connecticut. She thanks her fellow Gfeller Laurie, LLP attorneys who contributed to this article. Melicent has close to 25 years of experience in litigation and corporate counseling. She actively practices in Connecticut and Georgia courts in insurance coverage, business disputes, professional liability claims, defense of educational and financial institutions and general liability. Her insurance coverage practice encompasses all areas of first and third party claims and related litigation services, including declaratory judgment actions, defense of bad faith claims and reinsurance matters. Melicent has substantial appellate court experience, having briefed and argued appeals before the Second Circuit Court of Appeals and the Connecticut Supreme and Appellate Courts. Her pro bono work includes serving as General Counsel to the Board of Directors of Gifts of Love, a charity providing basic needs to the working poor, based in Avon, Connecticut. She also serves as a member of the Advisory Council of Bay Path University (Longmeadow, Massachusetts). About The Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation is a co-production of HB, Fastcase, and Law Street Media. You can also hear the complementary (and complimentary) Emerging Litigation Podcast wherever podcasts appear. For questions, contact Tom Hagy, Editor in Chief, at Editor@LitigationConferences.com. [...]
Myriah Jaworski on Arbitration as Defense Against Data Breach Class Actions
Myriah Jaworski on Individual Arbitration as a Defense Strategy Against Data Breach Class Actions Abstract Data privacy class actions are proliferating. Defendant companies may find an effective defense strategy is moving to compel individual arbitration. Not all contracts have the appropriate language, however, and, even if they do, they may not succeed. This article, which will appear in the forthcoming issue of the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation, discusses U.S. privacy litigation and case law on compelling arbitration of class claims in the privacy law context, with recommendations for businesses to improve their chances of securing court orders that enforce arbitration language in their agreements. Author Myriah V. Jaworski, Esq. (mjaworski@beckage.com), is a member with the Beckage, a law firm specializing in technology, data security and privacy. She is a Certified Information Privacy Professional, United States (CIPP/US) and Certified Information Privacy Professional, Europe (CIPP/E). She leads Beckage’s Privacy Litigation Practice Group where she represents clients in data breach actions, technology vendor disputes, and the defense of consumer class actions and related regulatory investigations. Myriah is also a former Trial Attorney with the Department of Justice. About The Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation is a co-production of HB, Fastcase, and Law Street Media. You can also hear the complementary (and complimentary) Emerging Litigation Podcast wherever podcasts appear. For questions, contact Tom Hagy, Editor in Chief, at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.
Charlie Kingdollar on Emerging Issues Facing the Property & Casualty Insurance Industry
Emerging Issues Facing the Property & Casualty Insurance Industry: What Has, What Is, What Will Be Charlie Kingdollar was Emerging Issues Officer for GenRe where he worked for 40 years, much of which was spent monitoring hundreds of new risks at any given time. In this article, Charlie discusses risks that have long-since emerged but continue today, risks that are starting to reveal themselves, and risks just starting to appear on the horizon. Read or download his article published in the latest issue of the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation.
Will We See More Antitrust Litigation During Biden Administration?
One Current and One Former FTC Official Weigh in on Outlook for Antitrust Litigation (Excerpt from MoginRubin Blog) FTC Commissioner Noah Phillips and George Washington Law School Competition Law Director William E. Kovacic, who once chaired the agency, appeared on a webinar today (March 16, 2021) hosted by the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF). Aurelien Portuese, ITIF’s Director of Antitrust and Innovation Policy, asked the speakers what we might expect from the Biden administration in terms of antitrust law, reform, and enforcement. “I think that the aggressiveness that's going on in court right now will increase," Phillips said. "I think you'll see more litigation. What effects that will have I'm not sure. That can result in more antitrust, if you will, but it can also result in losses and legal rulings that don't favor the agencies. But I do think you'll see more litigation." He went on to predict "an increasing attempt to slow M&A generally." “On litigation," former FTC Chair Kovacic said, "the new leadership in many ways is committed to doing much more and, in an exaggerated way, they have denigrated the significance of what's already on the way. They're going to discover in a hurry how hard it is to bring the matters that are in flight already to a successful landing." Read more at the MoginRubin Blog.
Purdue Oxy Settlement Offer Greeted With WTH
Company Offers to "Pay" Part of Settlement with Addiction Pharmaceuticals While the Sackler family has upped the ante, the settlement is met with some groans and skepticism. Jessica Hartogs, Editor at LinkedIn News: "Purdue Pharma has offered up a $10 billion restructuring plan that would pay $500 million up front to settle approximately 135,000 claims linked to the company's role in the opioid epidemic. The Sackler family would pay more than $4 billion over a decade and also give up domestic ownership of the company, which is alleged to have fueled the deadly national opioid crisis with its OxyContin drug. They would also admit no wrongdoing. Two dozen state attorneys general immediately rejected the plan, reported NPR." Charlie Kingdollar, Retired Emerging Issues Officer at Gen Re: Members of the Sackler family offered roughly $4.3 billion to resolve sprawling opioid litigation, up from $3 billion initially proposed in settlement discussions. Siladitya Ray, Staff Writer, Forbes: "The new settlement plan put forth by the Sacklers is $1.3 billion higher than their original offer and if approved it will be used to reimburse states, local governments, Native American tribes and other plaintiffs who have successfully sued Purdue for its role in fueling the opioid crisis... As part of the proposal, the $4.28 billion from the Sacklers will be paid in installments over a decade and additionally the company would pay around $500 million in cash up front." Jonathan Randles and Sara Randazzo, Wall Street Journal: Purdue’s chapter 11 plan must be approved by a bankruptcy judge and likely will be challenged in court by individuals who have suffered injuries from opioids and state attorneys general who have not signed onto the deal. A final resolution isn’t expected before the summer. “We’re going to keep fighting for the accountability that families [...]
Psychedelics Decriminalization and Regulation with Griffen Thorne
Psychedelics Decriminalization and Regulation with Griffen Thorne Listen to my interview with Griffen Thorne, an attorney in the Los Angeles office of Harris Bricken LLP. He focuses on corporate, transactional, intellectual property, data security, regulatory, and litigation matters across a wide variety of domestic and international industries. As part of Harris Bricken’s corporate cannabis team, he works closely with cannabis and hemp clients, whom he advises on obtaining licenses and permits, regulatory compliance, entity formation and structuring, mergers and acquisitions, corporate governance issues, contract drafting and negotiation, obtaining and protecting intellectual property rights, and administrative appeals and litigation. He also represents clients throughout a wide range of industries regarding compliance with United States, European, and Asian Internet, technology, and data security laws and regulations. We hope you enjoy the interview. Tom Hagy Send questions or comments to Editor@LitigationConferences.com. What does the future hold for psychedelics in America? How are states approaching the ownership and use of these drugs, either for recreational or their controlled therapeutic use?
Couple Pleads Guilty to $1.1 Million COVID-Relief Fraud After Falsely Claiming to Be Farmers
Couple Pleads Guilty to $1.1 Million COVID-Relief Fraud After Falsely Claiming to Be Farmers News From the U.S. Department of Justice A Florida couple pleaded guilty for their participation in a scheme to file four fraudulent loan applications seeking more than $1.1 million in forgivable Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) and Economic Injury Disaster Loans (EIDL) loans guaranteed by the Small Business Administration (SBA) under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act. On Aug. 26, 2020, Latoya Stanley, 38, and Johnny Philus, 33, both of Miami, were originally charged via a complaint filed in the Southern District of Florida. In Stanley’s PPP application, she claimed to employ 18 individuals from her company, Dream Gurl Beauty Supply LLC. Philus, meanwhile, stated that he employed 29 individuals at his company, Elegance Auto Boutique LLC. In actuality, Stanley and Philus did not employ anyone at their respective companies. In her EIDL application, Stanley claimed to generate over $800,000 in income and to employ five individuals from a farm based in the yard of her Miami home. In his EIDL application, Philus claimed to generate $400,000 in income and to employ 10 individuals from a farm located in the yard of a small residential home. In actuality, Stanley and Philus employed no one and the farms did not exist. Stanley and Philus worked together to effectuate the fraud and ultimately received over $1 million in fraudulent funds from the fraudulent PPP and EIDL applications before their schemes were uncovered. Sentencing has been scheduled for June 2. Acting Assistant Attorney General Nicholas L. McQuaid of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division; U.S. Attorney Ariana Fajardo Orshan of the Southern District of Florida; Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) J. Russell George; Inspector General Hannibal “Mike” Ware of the SBA’s [...]
Western Alliance Bank Webinars On-Demand
Western Alliance Bank Settlement Services Western Alliance Bank offers specialized banking for law firms, claims administrators and related businesses managing class action, mass tort and bankruptcy settlements. We bring you years of expertise in supporting all phases of the settlement process from escrow through distribution with a single point of contact. Our committed team offers a highly personalized banking experience with a focus on exceptional service, flexibility and responsiveness. Class Action Settlements Mass-Torts Bankruptcy Simple to complex attorney-focused fiduciary banking solutions Escrow & Distribution Solutions Learn More & Meet the Team CLE Webinars Compliments of Western Alliance Bank Settlement Services Rule 23 Mandatory Arbitration Data Breach Class Actions Wage & Hour Digital Payments Class Settlement Structures
Employment Law in the COVID-19 Era with Stefani Schwartz
Employment Law in the COVID-19 Era with Stefani Schwartz Joining me to discuss this important subject is Stefani Schwartz, co-founder of the woman-owned employment-and-labor boutique Hatfield Schwartz in New Jersey. Stefani has devoted her legal career to representing employers in all aspects of employment law, including discrimination, harassment, retaliation, and wrongful termination matters. Stefani will be featured in the next issue of 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 awesome Stefani is, drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com. We hope you enjoy the interview, and a guest appearance by Benny, her Portuguese Water Dog, you know, because she's working from home. Stefani also shares one retail customer's quick fix for forgetting her face mask. More of us are working from home and, given it often has advantages, it's an arrangement that is likely to continue for many of us. This raised the general question: Is your home officially "the office," with all the attendant rules and norms? What new risks do employers face? What new ways can employees find themselves in trouble? We're also getting vaccinated. But many are not. Can companies required employees to get the shot? Studies reveal that we're not all bearing the burden of remote working evenly. Who is carrying more of the load? Given these dramatic changes, should employers adjust their policies?
Women in Law
Western Alliance Bank presents a CLE-eligible webinar Women in Law Becoming the Master of Your Career According to the National Association of Women Lawyers, there has been a "sustained (albeit small) improvement for women amongst equity partners since the survey’s inception in 2006 (15% compared to 19% - 21% in recent years)." "This is a positive trend toward a more representative legal profession, but change at this glacial pace will continue to result in future generations of lawyers entering a profession where women and diverse attorneys are underrepresented in positions of power and influence. A continued, rigorous examination of and changes to existing practices – a movement from talk to action – is needed to speed progress in a meaningful way for women and other underrepresented groups." As women work to advance their careers amid these market and social realities, there is much they can do on their own initiative to navigate their career in a manner that -- over time -- will meet or exceed their professional and personal objectives. We are fortunate two extraordinary women professionals have agreed to share a wealth of insights, tactics and strategies they employed to steadily rise through the ranks of their respective professions. Mary Beth Foley is General Counsel of Ohio Police and Fire Fund, and President of the National Association of Public Pension Attorneys. Joining her is Barbara Hart, Director and Executive Committee Member at the law firm Grant & Eisenhofer. Barbara is also a member of the Thirty Percent Coalition which advocates for diversity on Fortune 500 boards. Join us for an engaging format in which Mary Beth and Barbara take turns interviewing one another about proven strategies they recommend other women in the profession consider as they chart their careers. Review the topics they [...]
Facial Recognition: How It Works and How It Doesn’t
Debbie Reynolds Founder, CEO & CDPO Debbie Reynolds Consulting Website Martin T. Tully Founding Partner Actuate Law Website Facial Recognition: Benefits & Risks Editor's Note: Imagine how great technology would be if it weren't for people. Since the beginning of time man has developed remarkable solutions to common problems. But leave it to nefarious, despicable, criminal or just plain dumb people to ruin them for the rest of us. You know, like gun powder, nuclear power, and the internet. Facial recognition programs and collection of biometric data would appear to have more benefits than risks, but those risks are there. As use of the technology proliferates we can expect more litigation as additional states follow Illinois -- the first to enact a state Biometric Information Privacy Act. Martin T. Tully of Actuate Law LLC and Debbie Reynolds of Debbie Reynolds Consulting LLC, outline these risks and how regulation and litigation is responding in their article: Facial Recognition Proliferation: Litigation and Legal Implications of Biometric Technologies. Below are a couple excerpts from their article, published in the January 2021 edition of the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation. --Tom Hagy Some FR technologies use a scanner to identify 4,500 different points of facial geometry to create a map of a person's face. The application doesn’t necessarily store photos of faces; it generates and stores a unique, algorithmic representation of faces. Think of it as a hash value for that individual. The hash value can then recognize that person when they return to a facility after initially registering. "Ah, you're Mary, the FedEx driver. You are authorized to go to Suite 501 and deliver this package to Acme Corporation because you previously registered yourself here in that capacity." Notably, the hash value in this example is encrypted [...]
Does Data Sharing and Zoombombing Cause Actual Harm?
Legal Writer Law Street Media FTC Settles Health Data Sharing and Privacy Suit With Fertility App Flo Health Nothing in this life is free. Or cheap. Free and low-cost apps. Free internet searches. Free email. Free iPhones. Yeah. We're paying for it one way or the other. In this case, once again, it's private health information some folks are paying with. Here is an excerpt of a post shared with the permission of Fastcase and Law Street Media. --Tom Hagy, HB Litigation Conferences WASHINGTON, DC -- Jan. 13, 2021 -- The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced that that it has reached a proposed settlement with Flo Health, Inc., the “developer of a period and fertility-tracking app used by more than 100 million consumers,” over claims that the company shared user health information with third-party data analytics providers despite promising that this information would remain private. In the complaint, the FTC alleged that Flo promised users that it would keep their health data, which includes menstrual cycle tracking and a PMS symptom log, as well as ovulation, fertility, and pregnancy information, private because it would only use this information to provide the app’s services to users. However, the FTC averred that Flo disclosed millions of users’ health data from its Flo Period & Ovulation Tracker app to third-parties “that provided marketing and analytics services to the app, including Facebook’s analytics division, Google’s analytics division, Google’s Fabric service, AppsFlyer, and Flurry.” Read the complete story and more at LawStreetMedia.com.
COVID-19 and the Courtroom with Alison Besunder
COVID-19 and the Courtroom with Alison Besunder Joining me is Alison Besunder on this timely and evolving subject. It’s based on her article — Crisis is the Mother of Change: How a Pandemic Sparked Progress in Courtroom Efficiency — which will be featured in the January 2021 issue of the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation. Alison brings extensive experience counseling clients on matters ranging from the simple to complex, helping them prevent future disputes through proactive planning and to resolve disputes that proceed to litigation. She is a frequent speaker on topics such as Estate Planning During Divorce, End of Life Decision Making, Cyber-Security for Lawyers, and Social Media and Ethics. She operated her own firm for several years and in 2019 joined Goetz Fitzpatrick LLP. 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 Alison is, drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com. We hope you enjoy the interview. What efficiencies have been foisted upon our nation's courts as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic? What has worked and what has not? Are we going to see permanent implementation of things like webcam hearings and virtual trials?
Does Data Sharing and Zoombombing Cause Actual Harm?
Legal Writer Law Street Media Zoom Says Data Sharing, Zoombombing Doesn't Cause Personal Harm Zoom is a good name for this company. It seems to have come out of nowhere to become the new verb for web meetings, robbing that distinction from many more established competitors like WebEx and GoToMeeting, maybe because they don't have cool web-sounding names, although people don't seem to be saying "let's Skype later," as much as they used to. Sure, we still "Facetime," but Zoom really shot to the top when it comes to name recognition. According to CNBC's Ari Levy, Zoom reported fiscal third-quarter revenue growth of more than 300% after seeing 355% expansion in the prior period. The company's stock was up almost seven-fold this year but "pulled back in November on positive news surrounding a coronavirus vaccine," Levy reported. And with success comes risk, especially when dealing with private data. Here is an excerpt of a post shared with the permission of Fastcase and Law Street Media. --Tom Hagy, HB Litigation Conferences Dec. 4, 2020 (San Francisco) -- On Wednesday [Dec. 2], in the Northern District of California, Zoom Video Communications filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ first amended consolidated class action complaint (FAC) on the grounds that the FAC failed to state a claim for which relief may be granted. The consolidated complaint alleged that Zoom engaged in unauthorized data sharing with third parties, such as Facebook, LinkedIn, and Google. Additional complaints included an alleged failure to prevent unwanted meeting disruptions by outside parties, called Zoombombing; and misrepresentation of its encryption protocols claiming it used end-to-end encryption when it purportedly did not provide such encryption. Zoom stated that it faced unprecedented growth resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic, as people began using Zoom for teleconferences and to communicate with friends and family, [...]
Biogen Pays 22M To Resolve False Claims Act Charges For Paying Kickbacks
The Justice Department has announced that Biogen, Inc., has agreed to pay $22 million to resolve claims that it violated the False Claims Act by illegally using foundations as a conduit to pay the copays of Medicare patients taking Biogen’s multiple sclerosis drugs, Avonex and Tysabri. Biogen did not admit liability in reaching the agreement. […]
FTC’s Case Against Facebook Will Test the Flexibility of U.S. Antitrust Law
MoginRubin LLP Washington, DC | San Diego 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. FTC's Case Against Facebook Will Challenge the Adaptability of U.S. Antitrust Law Society leads, and the law follows. This is especially true in antitrust, where industries and markets undergo constant change brought about by innovation and changing consumer behavior. Confronted with ever evolving commercial circumstances, the courts face a constant struggle to keep up. With the filing of the antitrust cases against the Facebook “monopoly” by the Federal Trade Commission and 47 state attorneys general, U.S. antitrust faces one of its most significant tests since the case of U.S. v. Microsoft, now 20 years old. In the intervening decades, the Internet has spawned a new category of industry, “demand aggregators.” These businesses seek to grow market share not just by capturing supply, but also demand. The power of the dominant digital platforms—Google, Apple, Facebook, Amazon, Uber—arises as much or more from [...]
Chubb’s COVID-19 Claim Denials Draw Litigation from Hollywood
Editor and Managing Director HB Litigation Conferences Editor@LitigationConferences.com Chubb’s COVID-19 Claim Denials Draw Litigation from Hollywood Well-known policyholder and insurance recovery attorney Kirk Pasich and his firm have sued Chubb insurance companies on behalf of policyholders in the entertainment industry to recover millions in losses they suffered as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic. Entertainment Business Interruption On Nov. 11, 2020, the firm filed suit on behalf of United Talent Agency LLC in Los Angeles County Superior Court against Vigilant Insurance Co. and Federal Insurance Co. UTA seeks coverage for the millions it lost when concerts and television and movie projections had to be cancelled. The complaint says both carriers are part of the Chubb group, “which has adopted a universal practice of denying coverage for all business interruption claims associated with SARS-CoV-2, Covid-19, and subsequent events” (UTA v. Vigilant, No. 20STCV43745, Calif. Super. Ct., Los Angeles). Acts affected include Post Malone, Guns N' Roses, and Toby Keith. The case hinges in part on the carriers’ assertion that there was no “physical loss or damage.” UTA finds Vigilant based its finding on little information, and knowing for decades that "many courts have held that the presence of a hazardous substance on a property, including the airspace inside buildings, constitutes property damage and that there may be ‘direct physical loss’ to property even if the property is not structurally damaged.” Pasich and his partner Michael S. Gehrt represent UTA. Film Coverage "Fraudulently Reformed" On Sept. 9, 2020, motion picture production company Hoosegow (Hypnotic) Productions Inc. sued Chubb National Insurance Company in federal court in California, arguing that the carrier breached its agreement to extend coverage for the film, titled Hypnotic starring actors including Ben Afleck, should production be delayed. When Covid-19 hit and stopped production, Chubb, [...]
Assessing Risk in Medical Malpractice Mediation
HB Litigation Conferences presents Assessing Risk in Medical Malpractice Mediation CLE-eligible on demand webinar | Recorded 2021 Lawyers and claims professionals assess litigation outcomes all the time. The parties do not. You can help. Understandably, parties in medical malpractice disputes do not fully appreciate the risks inherent in litigation and are not aware of how continued litigation affects their underlying interests in the dispute. For example, some parties see the outcome as a reflection of their personal character. These challenges can hamper the parties' ability to make good decisions in litigated medical malpractice cases. Even organizations that are experienced in assessing litigation risk can make more decisions in these cases with adverse outcomes. Hear our panel of medical malpractice and insurance attorneys and litigation experts as they share their insights on successfully guiding individuals and organizations through these disputes. Registration Includes Nearly 90 minutes of insights from experienced professionals. CLE credit: 1+ (subject to bar rules). For CLE questions: CLE@LitigationConference.com The complete Power Point presentation. Continued access to the complete recording for later use. Answers to your questions via email to the presenters or write to HB and we will be sure to contact the speakers. REGISTRATION Key Points What are the intangible costs of medical malpractice litigation for individuals and institutions? How can advocates, claims professionals, and parties make better decisions in these cases? How are medical malpractice claims mediated? How can advocates use risk assessments in settlement negotiations? What do participants want from mediators? Meet the speakers. Gregory K. Wells Gregory K. Wells is a Maryland-based personal injury lawyer and partner with Shadoan, Michael & Wells LLP. His practice focuses on Plaintiff’s medical malpractice, serious [...]
The Antitrust Case Against Google
The Antitrust Case Against Google Perspectives from highly regarded competition law attorneys, litigators, and economists. This overview and Q&A has been developed for advertisers, mobile device makers, app developers, corporate counsel, business writers, and search market participants. The U.S. Department of Justice and 11 states have filed a sweeping antitrust suit against Google alleging the tech giant abuses its position as "monopoly gatekeeper for the internet" to block competitors. The complaint says Google has used anticompetitive tactics to maintain and extend its monopolies in the markets for general search services, search advertising, and general search text advertising. The federal and state governments charge Google uses "exclusionary agreements, including tying arrangements" to "lock up distribution channels and block rivals." Google's considerable wealth helps make this happen. Google pays billions of dollars a year to distributors to secure their position as the default search engine, and prohibits these companies from dealing with Google competitors. Google's exclusionary strategy is being applied more harshly in newer technologies, such as voice assistants, and in its goal of dominating other platforms in the IoT category, such as smart speakers, home appliances, and autonomous cars. Without a court order, the government plaintiffs say, "Google will continue executing its anticompetitive strategy, crippling the competitive process, reducing consumer choice, and stifling competition." What does all of this mean to actual or potential rivals, ad buyers, consumer, developers, and device makers in three markets Search Service, Search Advertising, and Search Text Advertising? What type of defense might Google mount? What might the ultimate resolution look like? Join our panel, led by competition law thought leaders, as they address the potential impact of the litigation and answer your questions via live chat. • Setting the stage: What constitutes an illegal monopoly? • Lessons from United States v. Microsoft? [...]
Emboldened by New Resources and Expanded Authority, Feds Continue 10-Year Look Back at Chinese Investment
MoginRubin LLP By Dan Mogin, Jonathan Rubin, Jennifer M. Oliver, and Timothy Z. LaComb Journal: Policy Derailed: Can U.S. Antitrust Policy Toward Standard Essential Patents Get Back on Track. Author, Jonathan Rubin, MoginRubin LLP. Podcast: Algorithmic Software Facilitated Price Fixing with Jonathan Rubin Journal: FTC v. Amazon: Market Definitions and Section 5 of the FTC Act. Author, Jonathan Rubin, MoginRubin LLP Blog: Full Ninth Circuit Removes Unwarranted Hurdles to Class Certificatio. Authors, Jonathan Rubin and Dan Mogin, MoginRubin LLP Blog: FTC’s Case Against Facebook Will Test the Flexibility of U.S. Antitrust Law. By Jonathan Rubin and Jennifer Oliver, MoginRubin LLP OnDemand CLE Webinar: The Antitrust Case Against Google. Speakers Dan Mogin, Jonathan Rubin, Jennifer Oliver, Timothy LaComb, John Newman, Dr. Alan Grant OnDemand CLE Webinar: Class Certification After Olean v. Bumble Bee, Jonathan Rubin, James Bogan, Jonathan Cohn, Bradley Hamburger Interested in More CLE OnDemand? Click Here. Interested in this program? Click here to send us a note. Emboldened by New Resources and Expanded Authority, Feds Continue 10-Year Look Back at Chinese Investment At a conference earlier this year on the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, or CFIUS, Assistant Treasury Secretary Thomas P. Feddo spoke with pride of the Committee’s increased funding, jurisdiction, expenditures, and more aggressive review activities. Feddo began the speech by detailing how CFIUS has implemented the 2018 Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act, or FIRMMA, which expanded its jurisdiction and increased its funding. The Committee has invested in new IT infrastructure and personnel, and since May of this year, the Treasury Department has been collecting filing fees for voluntary filers, a new policy which creates a funding mechanism to supplement its budget. Feddo went on to discuss new rulemaking around foreign investment, including a proposed [...]
Heavy Metals in SFO Bay
Legal Writer Law Street Media San Francisco Baykeeper Sues Aviation Part Manufacturer Over Heavy Metal Pollution Reposted with permission of Law Street Media and Fastcase. On Tuesday in the Northern District of California, plaintiff San Francisco Baykeeper filed a civil action against defendants Allied Engineering & Production Corp., Allied Land Co. (collectively Allied), and Stone Boatyard to rectify the alleged past and ongoing contamination of canal shoreline near the San Francisco Bay. The plaintiff brings the suit under the private attorney general provision, asserting rights on behalf of the public against the defendants for supposedly dumping metal shavings in the Oakland Inner Harbor Tidal Canal in violation of the law. Baykeeper is an environmental non-profit organization with approximately 3,500 members who live and recreate in and around the San Francisco Bay area. The organization’s mission is “to defend San Francisco Bay from the biggest threats and hold polluters accountable to create healthier communities and help wildlife thrive.” It monitors and investigates pollution as part of its efforts to ensure that the bay is clean and safe for recreation. Defendant Allied Engineering operated a machine shop from 1951 to about 2011, located in Alameda, Calif., on a property that Allied Land owned. The machine shop manufactured aviation industry components and stored hazardous materials, hydraulic oils, lubricants, greases, fuels, coolants, and solvents, the complaint avers. The defendants are charged with dumping materials onto an adjacent parcel that was formerly owned by the United States but is now owned by Stone Boatyard. The plaintiff organization alleges that some of its members alerted it to a stretch of the canal’s shoreline contaminated with metal waste. Baykeeper staff investigated and discovered that the contamination consisted of metal shavings or swarf. The complaint also explains that “[s]ampling indicates [...]