Expert Analysis

• What 7th Circ. Samsung Decision Means For Mass Arbitration

  

  The Seventh Circuit's recent decision in Wallrich v. Samsung highlights the dilemma faced by mass arbitration filers in the face of nonpayment of arbitration fees by the defending party — but also suggests that there are risks for defendants in pursuing such a strategy, says Daniel Campbell at McDermott.

• Takeaways From Virginia's $2B Trade Secrets Verdict Reversal

  

  The Virginia Court of Appeals' recent reversal of the $2 billion damages award in Pegasystems v. Appian underscores the claimant's burden to show damages causation and highlights how an evidentiary ruling could lead to reversible error, say John Lanham and Kamran Jamil at Morrison Foerster.

• How Justices Upended The Administrative Procedure Act

  

  In its recent Loper Bright, Corner Post and Jarkesy decisions, the U.S. Supreme Court fundamentally changed the Administrative Procedure Act in ways that undermine Congress and the executive branch, shift power to the judiciary, curtail public and business input, and create great uncertainty, say Alene Taber and Beth Hummer at Hanson Bridgett.

• Employers Face Uncertainty After Calif. Justices' Slur Ruling

  

  In Bailey v. San Francisco District Attorney's Office, the California Supreme Court recently ruled that a singular use of a racial slur may be sufficiently severe to support a hostile work environment claim, leaving employers to speculate about what sort of comments or conduct will meet this new standard going forward, says Stephanie Roeser at Manatt.

• How Corner Post Affects Enviro Laws' Statutes Of Limitations

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court's recent ruling in Corner Post v. Federal Reserve Board has helped to alter the fundamental underpinnings of administrative law — and its plaintiff-centric approach may have implications for some specific environmental laws' statutes of limitations, say Chris Leason and Liam Martin at Gallagher and Kennedy.

• Jarkesy May Thwart Consumer Agencies' Civil Penalty Power

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy not only implicates future SEC administrative adjudications, but those of other agencies that operate similarly — and may stymie regulators' efforts to levy civil monetary penalties in a range of consumer protection enforcement actions, say attorneys at Holland & Knight.

• Ohio's New Citation Rules Could Cure 'The Bluebook Blues'

  

  The Ohio Supreme Court recently revised its writing manual to streamline citation format in legal briefs and opinions, deviating from Bluebook style, and encouraging lawyers and judges to draft cleaner documents that will give the substance of their legal arguments more persuasive power, say L. Bradfield Hughes and Chance Conaway at Porter Wright.

• 9th Circ. Ruling Flags Work Harassment Risks Of Social Media

  

  The recent Ninth Circuit ruling in Okonowsky v. Garland, holding an employer could be liable for a co-worker's harassing social media posts, highlights new challenges in technology-centered and remote workplaces, and underscores an employer's obligation to prevent hostile environments wherever their employees clock in, say Jennifer Lada and Phillip Schreiber at Holland & Knight.

• Trump's Best Hush Money Appeal Options Still Likely To Fail

  

  The two strongest potential arguments former President Donald Trump could raise in appealing his New York hush money conviction seem promising at first, but precedent strongly suggests they will still ultimately fail — though, of course, Trump's unique position could lead to surprising results, says former New York Supreme Court Justice Ethan Greenberg, now at Anderson Kill.

• Tips For Tax Equity-Tax Credit Transfers That Pass IRS Muster

  

  Although the Internal Revenue Service has increased its scrutiny of complex partnership structures, which must demonstrate their economic substance and business purpose, recent cases and IRS guidance together provide a reliable road map for creating legitimate tax equity structures, say Ian Boccaccio and Michael Messina at Ryan Tax.

• 7th Circ. Ruling Sheds Light On Extraterritoriality In IP Law

  

  A recent Seventh Circuit decision involving the Defend Trade Secrets Act, allowing for broader international application of trade secrets laws, highlights a difference in how trade secrets are treated compared to other areas of intellectual property law, say Armin Ghiam and Maria Montenegro-Bernardo at Hunton.

• Opinion

  Texas Judges Ignored ERISA's Core To Stall Fiduciary Rule

  

  Two recent rulings from Texas federal courts, which rely on a plainly wrong reading of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act to effectively strike a forthcoming rule that would impose functional fiduciary duties onto sellers of investment services, may expose financially unsophisticated 401(k) participants to peddlers of misleading advice, says Mark DeBofsky at DeBofsky Law.

• 2nd Circ. Ruling Reaffirms Short-Swing Claims Have Standing

  

  The Second Circuit's recent ruling in Packer v. Raging Capital reversing the dismissal of a shareholder's Section 16(b) derivative suit seeking to recover short-swing profits for lack of constitutional standing settles the uncertainty of the district court's decision, which could have undercut Congress' intent in crafting Section 16(b) in the first place, say attorneys at Simpson Thacher.

• Mirror, Mirror On The Wall, Is My Counterclaim Bound To Fall?

  

  A Pennsylvania federal court’s recent dismissal of the defendants’ counterclaims in Morgan v. Noss should remind attorneys to avoid the temptation to repackage a claim’s facts and law into a mirror-image counterclaim, as this approach will often result in a waste of time and resources, says Matthew Selmasska at Kaufman Dolowich.

• Insurance Lessons From 11th Circ. Ruling On Policy Grammar

  

  The Eleventh Circuit's recent decision in ECB v. Chubb Insurance, holding that missing punctuation didn't change the clear meaning of a professional services policy, offers policyholder takeaways about the uncertainty that can arise when courts interpret insurance policy language based on obscure grammatical canons, say Hugh Lumpkin and Garrett Nemeroff at Reed Smith.