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.
Persuasion as Direct and Honest Trial Advocacy with Jack Siegal
Persuasion as Direct and Honest Advocacy with Jack Siegal The relevance to jury trials and jury persuasion is obvious. According to studies cited in a 2019 article in Business Insider, people develop first impressions of you “even before you open your mouth.” That means your mere appearance “affects how trustworthy, promiscuous, and powerful people think you are.” It’s the trustworthy part that attorneys need to pay attention to. Regardless of the strength of their case or whether the law is on their side, an attorney still must be persuasive. And, unless the audience – whether it is a judge, a panel of judges, a regulatory body, or a jury – sees you as credible, the rest will likely not matter. But what makes an attorney, or anyone for that matter, credible? Is this something you’re born with or is it something you can develop over time? Is it true, as some studies suggest, that you can change some first impressions by making some changes in how you present yourself, or are you just stuck with a less than trustworthy vibe? Interested in upping your jury persuasion game? A Good Place to Start Listen to my interview with attorney Jack I. Siegal, a partner with Fox Rothschild LLP in Boston. Jack believes we can all make positive adjustments in the nuanced practice of achieving credibility. This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation. 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 please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com. P.S. Toward the end I could barely manager my ADHD [...]
“Years of Deception” Behind Consumer Privacy Violations Alleged
Mental Health Platform's Data Sharing Practices Challenged. BetterHelp allegedly shared personal identifiable info with third parties. FTC files administrative complaint asserting "years of deception." Days later, two class actions were filed in the Northern District of California. Online mental health company BetterHelp, Inc. is facing allegations on two fronts for allegedly sharing personal identifiable information with third parties and breaching consumer privacy. The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) initiated an administrative complaint against the California-based online mental health company on March 2, 2023, after what they call years of deceptive practices and blatant denial of a media report published by Jezebel in February 2020. The article cited evidence that BetterHelp shares sensitive patient information and email account information with third parties such as Facebook, Snapchat, Criteo, and Pinterest. Days after the FTC filed its complaint, consumers filed two class actions in the Northern District of California’s San Jose Division (C.M. v. BetterHelp, Inc., March 7, 2023, 5:23-cv-01033 and Jane Doe v. BetterHelp, Inc., March 11, 2023, 5:23-cv-01096). Both consumer privacy lawsuits state that their facts are largely supported by experts in the field of data privacy. BetterHelp is a Delaware corporation with its principal office or place of business in Mountain View, Calif. On its website the company claims it is the “world’s largest therapy platform” with more than 25,000 licensed therapists available. BetterHelp operates generalized mental health therapy services and operates specialized therapy services for members of the LGBTQ community, members of the Christian Faith, Spanish-speaking clients, and teen counseling with parental consent. BetterHelp founder Alon Matas stated in a Medium article published Oct. 8, 2018, that, “One of our core missions is to destigmatize mental health. We firmly believe that nobody should ever feel ashamed or embarrassed to reach out for help.” Explosive Growth [...]
Litigation Funding Battle Over Litigation Control
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 indirect partner. All three are controlled by Burford and Burford operates as the sole funder of their respective litigation efforts. Sysco also criticized its attorneys at Boies Schiller Flexner, whom, they say, allegedly spoke with Burford representatives without Sysco’s knowledge. Sysco says the firm gave into Burford’s demands, an accusation the firm vehemently denies. Meanwhile, Burford has obtained an arbitration ruling blocking Sysco from finalizing any of the price-fixing settlements against the meat producers. Sysco has moved [...]
Alleged Hair Product Injuries Impact Women of Color
L’Oréal Among Defendants in Litigation Over Hair Products. Dozens of hair straightener cases allege higher incidence of cancers and other diseases. Plaintiffs in dry shampoo litigation say products contain benzene. Seven companies control the U.S. hair product industry. L’Oréal has been hit hard in recent hair care litigation related to straighteners, relaxants, and dry shampoos. L’Oréal was named a defendant in nearly sixty complaints alleging that straightening products manufactured by the beauty giant have caused cancer in its consumers. L’Oréal has also been named a defendant in a proposed class-action for its Redken dry shampoo that allegedly contains the carcinogen benzene. Other large industry players such as Johnson and Johnson and Unilever have also been accused of selling dry shampoos with dangerous levels of benzene. Straighteners and Relaxers Litigation Dozens of cases have been consolidated in multidistrict litigation against L’Oréal for its potentially cancerous hair straighteners and relaxers. Mitchell v. L’Oréal USA Inc. is a typical case. It was filed by Missourian Jennifer Mitchell, a black woman, after her diagnosis of uterine cancer which she claims was caused by endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) in L’Oréal’s hair straighteners and relaxers. Jennifer Mitchell was diagnosed with her cancer on August 10, 2018. “Ms. Mitchell was first exposed to EDCs and/or phthalate-based products around 2000, at or around the age of 10, when she began using Defendants’ Product.” She used the products as instructed for 22 years, leaving the chemicals in her hair for long periods of time. At the age of 28, she was diagnosed with uterine cancer despite the cancer not being in her family history. As a result of her cancer diagnosis, Ms. Mitchell had to undergo a full hysterectomy, causing her emotional and physical pain, and rendering her unable to have children. The complaint [...]
Electronic Fund Transfer Fraud with Brad Rustin
Electronic Fund Transfer Fraud with Brad Rustin Grifters, scammers, con artists Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who championed the creation of Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), calls the Zelle digital payments network a “preferred tool for grifters like romance scammers, cryptocurrency con artists, and those who prowl social media sites advertising concert tickets and purebred puppies — only to disappear with buyers’ cash after they pay.” 18 million Americans defrauded Scams and fraud committed via the Zelle platform and other peer-to-peer services are surging. According to one lawsuit 18 million Americans were defrauded by schemes perpetrated via apps like Zelle in 2020. Some 1,500 member banks and credit unions participate in the Zelle service. People sent $490 billion via the app in 2021. But Zelle owner, Early Warning, and its consortium comprising Bank of America, Truist, Capital One, JPMorgan Chase, PNC Bank, U.S. Bank, and Wells Fargo, have refused to refund customers for most of their losses. Sen. Warren issued a report that the claims for fraud received by just four banks will likely exceed $255 million by the end of 2022 – a $165 million increase over 2020. The senator and consumers say Zelle is violating federal consumer protection law. What is fraud? The heart of the problem is this: banks and consumers do not agree on the definition of “fraud.” For clarity on issues surrounding the Electronic Fund Transfer Act (EFTA) and its implementing regulation—Regulation E—listen to my interview with fintech attorney Brad Rustin of Nelson Mullins. In addition to chairing the firm’s Financial Services Regulatory Practice, Brad counsels financial institutions in regulatory matters, including strategic agreements, product development, and operational compliance. Brad is a Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialist and a Certified Regulatory Compliance Manager. He received his JD, magna cum laude, from the University of South Carolina School of [...]
Pixel Litigation the Latest Craze in Privacy Law
Meta, Google Face Barrage of Pixel Lawsuits in Digital Privacy War META PLATFORMS INC. AND GOOGLE are currently facing nearly 70 lawsuits involving large companies and some hospital systems or individual health care providers utilizing Pixel tracking tools embedded on their websites and applications. Sensitive private data such as financial information gathered from filing tax returns online or patient healthcare information stored on patient portals is being actively tracked and sent to Meta and Google for both analytical and advertising purposes. Tracking pixels are a 1x1 Pixel graphic that serves as a snippet of code used for tracking user behavior, site conversions, web traffic, and other metrics generated from a site’s server. In 2018, Meta told Congress that there were more than 2 million Pixels across the web, which at the time, was one of the largest data-harvesting operations most internet users had ever seen. Meta makes their Pixel code freely available to anyone and any business – thus the amount of Pixel tracking has exponentially grown since Meta testified before Congress. The analytical information that companies gleam from Pixel tracking is paying off and is featured on everything from fast food companies such as Chick-Fil-A, media companies like iHeart Radio, and even tax-filing websites such as Tax Slayer or TaxAct. Pixel Tax Data On November 22, 2022, theverge.com co-published a report with The Markup, revealing that Pixel tracking tools located on several renown American tax-filing websites were sending individual tax filers’ contact and financial information to Meta and Google. From January to July 2022, The Markup tracked websites’ use of the Pixel as part of the Pixel Hunt in partnership with Mozilla Rally. Participants of the Pixel Hunt installed a browser extension that provided The Markup with a copy of all data shared with Meta [...]
Toxic Train Wreck Sparks Litigation
Legal News: Ohio AG Sues Norfolk Southern Over East Palestine Train Spill. Legal News On March 14, 2023, Ohio filed a lawsuit against Norfolk Southern Railway Company, a multi-billion dollar entity, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. The lawsuit stems from the East Palestine train derailment (the “Derailment”), which took place on February 3, 2023. The lawsuit seeks to “recover response costs, redress damages to natural resources, and receive an order for injunctive relief, civil penalties, and damages.” The Derailment The Derailment of train 32N occurred at approximately 9 PM in East Palestine, Ohio—roughly fifty miles northwest of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The accident is believed to have been caused by the overheating and failure of at least one wheel bearing. Twenty of the derailed cars contained hazardous materials, including vinyl chloride, butyl acrylate, ethylhexyl, acrylate, and ethylene glycol monobutyl ether. Chief among the substance concerns was vinyl chloride, which emits toxic substances when it burns. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) states that it was notified of the Derailment about two hours after it occurred, and personnel were on site five hours after the accident. The surrounding downwind area was evacuated. Reports were made of health and safety hazards to people and animals in the affected region. Three days after the crash, emergency responders intitiated a controlled release and burn of the remaining vinyl chloride. All the while, the EPA was overseeing air monitoring, water sampling, and other safety controls. On February 10, 2023, EPA Region Five sent a notice of potential liability to Norfolk Southern’s Deputy General Counsel, Matt Gernand. The letter conveyed that the company was a potentially responsible party that might be responsible for cleaning up the Derailment site, or reimbursing the EPA for the cleanup costs incurred by the Agency, under [...]
European Court of Human Rights to Hear Case on Climate Change by Victoria Kline
Guest Writer Victoria is a third-year student at the University of Miami School of Law, Juris Doctorate Candidate 2023, Law Review Staff Editor, and soon-to-be associate at Jones Day. European Court of Human Rights to Hear Case on Climate Change By Victoria Kline The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) is hearing a landmark case brought forward by the Senior Women for Climate Protection Switzerland, who are suing the Swiss government (the “State”) for human rights violations related to climate change. Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and others v. Switzerland (“KlimaSeniorinnen”) is one of the first climate change matters the court has taken up. On Wednesday, March 29, 2023, the ECHR held a public hearing. History of the Case KlimaSeniorinnen began back in 2016, ignited by a group of women called KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz, the Senior Women for Climate Protection Switzerland. The group filed suit in Swiss court against a variety of Swiss federal government bodies alleging violations of obligations set forth in the Swiss Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights (the “Convention”). The heart of the suit is the State’s shortcomings in progress being made towards the adopted Paris Agreement’s goal to keep “the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels.” The elderly plaintiffs purport that their demographic is especially vulnerable to the “temperature-related morbidity and mortality” caused by “climate change-induced excessive heat.” On April 25, 2017, the suit was dismissed by the Federal Department of the Environment Transport, Energy and Communications for lack of standing on the prongs of injury and remedy. Over a year later, the Swiss Federal Administrative Court rejected the plaintiffs’ appeal. Subsequently, on May 20, 2020, the Swiss Supreme Court also rejected the plaintiffs’ filed appeal, holding that plaintiffs should seek their desired [...]
AI Image Generators and Copyright: Eligibility in the U.S., UK, EU, and More; Fair Use, Derivative Works, Liability
AI Image Generators and Copyright: Eligibility in the U.S., UK, EU, and More; Fair Use, Derivative Works, Liability AI programs are now readily available for all. Stability AI, Lensa, and other AI image creation tools create original works of art, raising the question of IP protection for such art. The United States requires human authorship in order to obtain copyright protection, and so far, the U.S. Copyright Office has declined to grant copyright registrations for AI-created works of art based on a lack of human authorship (one of these decisions is being challenged in Thaler v. Perlmutter (D.D.C. filed June 2, 2022)). While some countries take a similar approach to the US, others treat the issue of copyright eligibility for AI-generated art quite differently and provide at least some protection of computer generated works. Questions have also been raised as to whether AI-generated images constitute derivative works and whether such images and the AI generation tools used to create them infringe third-party copyrights, or whether the fair use doctrine or other defenses may apply. The first lawsuits involving image generators have now been filed raising copyright claims in addition to other claims. Listen as our authoritative panel of IP attorneys examines AI image generators and the associated copyright issues. The panel will discuss eligibility in the U.S. and the recent actions by the Copyright Office and contrast this with the approaches used in other countries. The panel will also address the recent cases that have been filed and the potential liability for copyright infringement in the U.S. and other countries. Michael R. Graif Member Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky and Popeo Lisa T. Oratz Senior Counsel Perkins Coie Scott J. Sholder Partner Cowan DeBaets Abrahams & Sheppard CLE On-Demand Webinar This Strafford production has been specially selected for HB [...]
Greenhouse Gases Cited in Suit to Invalidate Drilling Leases
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 unnecessary or undue degradations of the land.” Five states have intervened for the defendants: Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Utah, and Wyoming. Defendants, through Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen, argued in their answer filed Oct. 21, 2022, the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, the plaintiffs lacked standing, that plaintiffs failed to exhaust their administrative remedies, and that the intervening states reserve the right to further amend pleadings throughout the course of litigation. [...]
Conservationists Try Again to Block Drilling in Alaska’s Western Arctic
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 quality of the human environment, the BoLM knew it had to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). After studying the Willow Oil Project and comparing it to three action-alternatives and one no-action alternative, as well as seeking public comment, the BLM published a final EIS for the Willow Oil Project on Aug. 14, 2020. The BLM’s approval was immediately contested in the Alaskan District Court by conservation and Alaska-native groups. [...]
Government Involvement in Medical Decisions During Outbreaks with Bryce McColskey and Sandra Cianflone
Government Involvement in Medical Decisions During Outbreaks It's apparently (and hopefully) on its last legs. The Covid-19 pandemic was the most recent health issue to raise questions around government’s involvement (or interference) in an individual’s control over their own medical treatment. In their article – Government Involvement in Medical Care Decisions During Outbreaks of Disease: How Far is Too Far? – our guests wrote about the intersection of law and medicine. They reviewed medical mandates, implications brought about by the impact of advances in science and medicine, and where role of government to protect public health intersects (or collides) with personal healthcare choices. They focused is on governmental responses to the pandemic, that is, what the government can mandate in the spirit of public health, and not on the separate issue of abortion, which is a “choice” subject for another day. How much authority do government agencies or even the courts have over a person’s healthcare decisions? People often assume the practice of medicine and the enactment and enforcement of laws are separate and independent enterprises; that they remain fixed in their respective corners. However, they wrote, after a deeper dive into history and precedent, it’s evident that the tension between individual rights and health-related mandates has existed for some time. Listen to my interview with the authors, Bryce McCloskey and Sandra M. Cianflone with Hall Booth Smith, P.C. Bryce is based in Jacksonville, Fla., where he focuses on medical malpractice and professional liability law. Sandie is a partner in the firm’s Atlanta office where she concentrates on a variety of aspects of healthcare defense She chairs the firm’s Coronavirus Task Force and is a member of the firm's National Trial Counsel team. She is also a valued member of the Editorial Board of Advisors of the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation. *********** This [...]
Government Involvement in Personal Medical Care Decisions During Outbreaks of Disease: How Far Is Too Far? by Bryce McColskey and Sandra M. Cianflone GalleryGovernment Involvement in Personal Medical Care Decisions During Outbreaks of Disease: How Far Is Too Far? by Bryce McColskey and Sandra M. Cianflone
Government Involvement in Personal Medical Care Decisions During Outbreaks of Disease: How Far Is Too Far? by Bryce McColskey and Sandra M. Cianflone
The Authors Bryce McColskey (bmccolskey@hallboothsmith.com) is an attorney with Hall Booth Smith, P.C., based in Jacksonville, Florida, where he focuses on medical malpractice and professional liability law. Sandra M. Cianflone (scianflone@hallboothsmith.com) is a partner in the Atlanta office of Hall Booth Smith, where she concentrates on a variety of aspects of healthcare defense and chairs the firm’s Coronavirus Task Force. She is also a member of the Editorial Board of Advisors 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. Government Involvement in Personal Medical Care Decisions During Outbreaks of Disease: How Far Is Too Far? "Breakthroughs in technologies, our knowledge of diseases and mutations, and advances in treatment options have been remarkable and have drastically reduced fatality rates from disease outbreaks. However, regardless of medical achievements, rapid changes in any field open the door to renewed debates over different laws and individual rights." Abstract: The coronavirus pandemic is the latest health issue to raise the question of government’s involvement (or interference) with an individual’s control over their own healthcare and medical treatment. In this article, the authors, two health care and professional liability attorneys, discuss the intersection of law and medicine with a review of medical mandates, the impact of advances in science and medicine, and where role of government to protect public health intersects (or collides) with personal healthcare choices. Their focus is on governmental response to the coronavirus pandemic, and not the recent landmark case dealing with choice. But add to the equation the Supreme Court’s ruling on abortion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health, the “government as healthcare [...]
The Cannabis Employment Law Patchwork with Keya Denner
The Cannabis Employment Law Patchwork with Keya Denner Maryland and Missouri are the latest states to legalize recreational cannabis for people 21 and older. Voters came out in favor of legalization in the November 2022 midterms, bringing the total recreational jurisdictions to 22 states and the District of Columbia. Voters in North Dakota, South Dakota, and Arkansas, however, decided against recreational marijuana. It remains legal for medical reasons in all five states. In the employment context, both recreational and medicinal uses raise questions about protections for employees who use the drug legally. Which states are enacting those protections? What do multi-state employers need to do? What about drug testing? As a requirement to get a job and as a requirement to keep your job? What about this: who is going to say whether a worker is impaired? Will there really be hall monitors trained in spotting your high? For answers to these questions and more, listen to my interview with Keya Denner, a partner at Constangy, Brooks, Smith & Prophete LLP. Keya is an experienced litigator who has been practicing labor and employment law for almost 20 years. Few attorneys nationwide match Keya’s expertise in the area of legal cannabis and its impact on the workplace. He has counseled Fortune 500 companies in the retail, hospitality, and global logistics spaces to create compliant policies and better understand the ever-changing legal landscape brought about by the legalization of cannabis across the United States. Most recently, Keya was named co-chair along with this colleague Ashley Orler of the firm’s new practice group focused on cannabis and employee substance abuse law. Keya received his J.D., cum laude, from Seton Hall University School of Law, J.D., cum laude, and his B.A., also cum laude, from Boston University. This podcast is the audio companion [...]
How Insurance Companies Defraud Their Policyholders, and What Courts and Legislators Should Do About It
The Authors Robert D. Chesler (rchesler@andersonkill.com) is a shareholder in Anderson Kill's Newark office. Bob represents policyholders in a broad variety of coverage claims against their insurers and advises companies with respect to their insurance programs. Bob is also a member of Anderson Kill's Cyber Insurance Recovery group. Bob has served as the attorney of record in more than 30 reported insurance decisions, representing clients including General Electric, Ingersoll-Rand, Westinghouse, Schering, Chrysler, and Unilever, as well as many small businesses including gas stations and dry cleaners. He has received numerous professional accolades, including a top-tier ranking for Insurance Litigation: New Jersey in Chambers USA: American's Leading Lawyers for Business, which dubs him a "dominant force in coverage disputes" and cites a client who calls him "a dean of the insurance Bar; one of the brightest in writing about and analyzing insurance coverage." Amy Weiss (aweiss@andersonkill.com) is a law clerk pending admission in Anderson Kill’s New York office. She focuses her practice on insurance recovery, exclusively on behalf of policyholders. While attending the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, Amy worked as a Summer Associate at Anderson Kill and a Judicial Intern for the Honorable Nicholas G. Garaufis at the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. She served as Senior Articles Editor for the Cardozo Arts and Entertainment Law Journal, participated in the Cardozo Visual & Performing Arts Law Field Clinic, was a teaching assistant for the Lawyering & Legal writing course, and was a research assistant for Professor Stewart E. Sterk. Amy received the Dean’s Merit Scholarship and graduated with Honors. Jade W. Sobh (jsobh@andersonkill.com) is an attorney in Anderson Kill’s New York office. Jade focuses his practice on both insurance recovery, exclusively on behalf of policyholders, as well as Government [...]
Potential Pitfalls with Adult-Use Cannabis: What Both Employers and Employees Should Know
The Authors Adam R. Dolan (adolan@gllawgroup.com) is a partner with Gfeller Laurie LLP, a tested litigator with a multifaceted practice, he has extensive experience handling catastrophic transportation, general liability, and products liability matters. He is a frequent writer and speaker on topics related to the cannabis industry. Kaylee E. Navarra (knavarra@gllawgroup.com) is an associate with Gfeller Laurie LLP where she works on matters involving commercial disputes, bad faith/ extracontractual liability, and insurance coverage. 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. Potential Pitfalls with Adult-Use Cannabis: What Both Employers and Employees Should Know "Employers may also take action when the employee, while working, manifests specific articulable symptoms of cannabis impairment that decrease or lessen the employee’s performance of the employee’s tasks or duties and/or the employee, while working, manifests specific articulable symptoms of cannabis impairment that interfere with the employer’s obligation to provide a safe and healthy workplace as required by state and federal workplace safety laws." Abstract: Recreational cannabis use for adults is legal in 21 states, having made its way eastward from Western jurisdictions that first addressed the issue. But these laws govern personal use during personal time. While they generally prohibit discrimination based on such use, these laws do not greenlight consumption at work or going to work under the influence. But with so many jurisdictions and job types, and variance among state laws, there aren’t simple answers. This is especially true for employers who conduct business nationwide, and because cannabis continues to be a Schedule I substance on the federal Controlled Substances Act. What rights and remedies do companies and workers have to resolve disputes? Are [...]
The New European Unified Patent Court with Marianne Schaffner and Thierry Lautier
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 creative, technically robust, and business-oriented patent strategies. This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation. 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 please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com. (actual size) Tom Hagy [...]
Reimagining the Administration of Justice with Qudsiya Naqui of Pew Charitable Trust
Before COVID-19 came to America in early 2020, “going to court” literally meant putting on your shoes and walking into a courthouse, typically a large building with courtrooms inside, and people in robes and business suits and, in some cases, more restrictive attire. Stoked by necessity, courts sprinted toward solutions for keeping the wheels of justice spinning while also keeping everyone away from each other. Until then it didn’t seem possible that attorneys could or would appear before judges via digital screens, like George Jetson getting yelled at by Mr. Spacely over some hilarious mishap at the sprocket factory. Pew Charitable Trust concluded an in-depth study of the courts with the 2021 release of a report, “How Courts Embraced Technology, Met the Pandemic Challenge, and Revolutionized Their Operations.” After examining emergency orders from all 50 states and Washington, D.C., and court approaches to virtual hearings, e-filing, and digital notarization, the researchers wrote that it was a time for "reimagining how to administer justice.” Was the adoption of technology effective? Were there any hiccups? Was technology widely embraced? Were the effects of new efficiencies enjoyed evenly across the socio-economic spectrum? Do we think courts will continue to reimagine how they administer justice without the crushing pressure of widespread disease? Listen to my interview with Qudsiya Naqui who leads Pew’s research at the intersection of technology and civil legal system reform. In this role, she evaluates and tests new technologies to ensure that they further efficiency, equity, and transparency in the legal process. This work is part of Pew’s Civil Justice Modernization Project. Before joining Pew, Qudsiya designed and implemented immigration, housing, and disaster recovery legal services programs at Equal Justice Works and the Vera Institute of Justice. She began her legal career representing immigrant women and girls seeking relief from deportation. Qudsiya holds a [...]
New Year, New Rules: FTC Proposes Sweeping Ban on Noncompete Agreements
The Author Andreya DiMarco (adimarco@hatfieldschwartzlaw.com) is counsel with Hatfield Schwartz Law Group LLC where she focuses on employment law and transactional matters. She has defended clients in state and federal courts and before administrative agencies, including the EEOC and DCR. 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. New Year, New Rules: FTC Proposes Sweeping Ban on Noncompetes "This is the FTC’s first attempt to ban non-compete agreements and strong opposition to the Proposed Rule as well as challenges regarding the scope of the FTC’s rule-making authority are likely to arise especially given the tremendous impact a retroactive and absolute non-compete ban would have. .... [P]otential litigation over the FTC’s authority to issue and enforce such a rule may cause further delays.... Moreover, the Proposed Rule is full of ambiguity which will likely be challenged." Abstract: On January 5, 2023, the Federal Trade Commission published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that would ban the use of noncompete agreements between employers and workers and would create an affirmative obligation for employers to void existing noncompete agreements. The Proposed Rule would also prohibit contractual clauses in other agreements or employment policies that have a similar effect. The Proposed Rule applies categorically to all workers, including independent contractors, without regard to a worker’s earnings or job function. This article discusses the nuances of the Proposed Rule as well as the legal and practical impact it will have if it is adopted. Download the article now!
Supplier Beware: The DOJ & FTC Investigating Manufacturing & Supply Chains
The Author Jennifer M. Driscoll (jdriscoll@rc.com) is counsel with Robinson+Cole in New York where she focuses on investigations, litigation, arbitration, mergers, and counseling. She has extensive experience in the medical devices, pharmaceuticals, electronics, and automotive industries. 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. Supplier Beware: DOJ & FTC Investigating Manufacturing & Supply Chain Issues “Although competitors may attend trade association meetings, the company representative in attendance should be well versed on the line between lawful discussions and ruses to disguise unlawful collusion in violation of the Sherman Act.” Abstract: Challenged by the pandemic, the global supply chain has generated a heightened amount of scrutiny for its impact on the economy, the labor market, the delivery of goods and services, and national security. Attention from the Biden administration portends an era when the federal government will shine a spotlight on the supply chain to root out misconduct. In this article, the author reviews recent supply chain disruptions and reactions from the DOJ and FTC, as well as the government’s efforts to support competition in the labor markets by eliminating noncompete agreements in employment contracts. Finally, she discusses proactive steps companies can take to mitigate the risk that they will find themselves the subject of a government investigation. Download the article now!
Medical Monitoring and PFAS Litigation—A Significant Growing Trend
The Author John P. Gardella (jgardella@cmbg3.com) is a shareholder with CMBG3 Law and a recognized thought leader on PFAS issues. In his environmental and toxic torts practice, he represents companies ranging in size from small shops to the Fortune 100. John is also a member of the Editorial Board of Advisors for 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. Medical Monitoring and PFAS Litigation—A Significant Growing Trend "The arguments in favor of medical monitoring as a cause of action in lawsuits stem from the notion that having such programs funded by allegedly tortious companies promotes the public health benefit of early detection, which in turn often results in lower health care costs to plaintiffs and society at large." Abstract: Medical monitoring as a tort claim is a hot-button issue in toxic torts, personal injury, and product liability litigation. The ubiquity of PFAS chemical compounds and the real and potential harm to health and the environment they create make examination of the medical monitoring debate specific to this burgeoning litigation worthy of individual attention. This article provides an explanation of PFAS, a brief overview of medical monitoring claims, how PFAS medical monitoring claims have impacted the litigation thus far, and what legal cases are pending that could alter the course of traditional medical monitoring litigation in the future. Download the article now!
The Medical Monitoring Tort Remedy: Its Nationwide Status, Rationale, and Practical Application (A Possible Dynamic Tort Remedy for Long-Term Tort Maladies) GalleryThe Medical Monitoring Tort Remedy: Its Nationwide Status, Rationale, and Practical Application (A Possible Dynamic Tort Remedy for Long-Term Tort Maladies)
The Medical Monitoring Tort Remedy: Its Nationwide Status, Rationale, and Practical Application (A Possible Dynamic Tort Remedy for Long-Term Tort Maladies)
The Author Edgar C. Gentle III (egentle@gtandslaw.com) is founder and managing partner of Gentle, Turner, Sexton & Harbison LLC in Birmingham, Alabama, where he focuses on complex commercial litigation, mass torts, and class actions. He also serves as a court appointed neutral and settlement administrator. 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 Medical Monitoring Tort Remedy: Its Nationwide Status, Rationale, and Practical Application (A Possible Dynamic Tort Remedy for Long-Term Tort Maladies) "States that allow medical monitoring do so when a group of claimants has been exposed to a known hazardous substance, such as lead, or a dangerous product, such as football helmet concussions, or air decompression in an airplane, through the conduct of the Defendant, with the claimants therefore being at increased risk of contracting disease. Under this tort remedy, claimants are tested periodically, for an agreed or decided period, usually between 10 and 40 years, to see if they contract the disease linked to the toxic substance or dangerous product. Thus, medical monitoring recognizes the long-term harmful nature of toxins and man-made products, thereby matching a remedy with the malady." Abstract: The author administers six mass tort settlements with a medical component, including two with medical monitoring. This article reviews the status and history of medical monitoring, known claimant medical monitoring participation rates, the rationale for the remedy, arguments for and against its implementation, and its execution in practice. The author suggests a more holistic medical monitoring remedy, which includes not only testing/or disease but paying claimants for personal injury when they get sicker later, from a capped fund and under an agreed payment matrix, to provide [...]
Will a New Wave of New Environmental/Toxic Tort Litigation and Claims Upend Insurance Industry Environmental Reserves?
The Author Charlie Kingdollar spent his career as emerging issues officer for a major global insurance company, tracking hundreds of future risks like those discussed in this article. Charlie is also a valued member of the Editorial Board of Advisors for 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. Will a New Wave of New Environmental/Toxic Tort Litigation and Claims Upend Insurance Industry Environmental Reserves? "PFAS chemicals are commonly called “forever chemicals,” because once released into the environment they can take hundreds or even thousands of years to break down." "Estimates that the ultimate costs of [these and other] environmental claims will land between $45 billion and $55 billion is terribly low. Maybe I’m missing something (always a possibility). If not, the insurance industry is in for a rude awakening." Abstract: To remain profitable and viable, the insurance and reinsurance industry must rely on estimated forecasts of potential claims many years out to establish an appropriate level of reserves. They rely on data from rating agencies and, based on these estimates, ratchet their reserves up or down accordingly. In past years, major and once unforeseen developments like massive asbestos and environmental litigation provided urgent reasons to cast an especially critical eye on the adequacy of industry reserves. In this article, the author explains why it is that time again. In light of several potentially calamitous emerging global liabilities he reviews here, particularly if they land with the impact he fears they might, the author believes the insurance industry and its policyholders may be in for a jolt a few short years from now. [...]
Autonomous Vehicles: The New Technology Driving the Litigation Conversation
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 updates." Abstract: So far, Congress has not been able to pass regulations governing the emergence of self-driving or autonomous vehicles. Twenty-one states and the United Kingdom are leading the way. As more of these vehicles take to the highway implications will emerge for the insurance industry. Auto insurance policies will have to determine how to insure against losses caused by nonhuman operators, commercial general liability policies will be affected when technology developers and car makers are [...]
Labor Organizing in Retail: Conditions Remain for Continued Momentum
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. 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. Labor Organizing in Retail: Conditions Remain for Continued Momentum "The political and social issues of the past few years, inflation, the looming recession, job security, wages, and pandemic-related frustration/unhappiness are just a few of the countless reasons cited for the boom in union support/approval." [...]