Expert Analysis

• Half-Truths Vs. Omissions: Slicing Justices' Macquarie Cake

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court's recent ruling in Macquarie v. Moab provides a road map for determining whether corporate reports that omit information should be considered misleading — and the court baked it into a dessert analogy that is key to understanding the guidelines, say Daniel Levy and Pavithra Kumar at Advanced Analytical Consulting Group.

• Lead Like 'Ted Lasso' By Embracing Cognitive Diversity

  

  The Apple TV+ series “Ted Lasso” aptly illustrates how embracing cognitive diversity can be a winning strategy for teams, providing a useful lesson for law firms, which can benefit significantly from fresh, diverse perspectives and collaborative problem-solving, says Paul Manuele at PR Manuele Consulting.

• Chevron's End Puts Target On CFPB's Aggressive BNPL Rule

  

  A recent interpretative rule by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, subjecting buy-now, pay-later loans to the same regulations as credit cards, is unlikely to survive post-Chevron challenges of the rule's partisan and shaky logic, say Scott Pearson and Bryan Schneider at Manatt.

• Justices' Ch. 11 Ruling Is A Big Moment For Debtors' Insurers

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent Truck Insurance v. Kaiser Gypsum ruling upends decades of Chapter 11 bankruptcy jurisprudence that relegated a debtor’s insurer to the sidelines, giving insurers a new footing to try and avoid significant liability, say Stuart Gordon and Benjamin Wisher at Rivkin Radler.

• Justices' Starbucks Ruling May Limit NLRB Injunction Wins

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Starbucks v. McKinney, adopting a more stringent test for National Labor Relations Board Section 10(j) injunctions, may lessen the frequency with which employers must defend against injunctions alongside parallel unfair labor practice charges, say David Pryzbylski and Colleen Schade at Barnes & Thornburg.

• Justices' Criminal Law Decisions: The Term In Review

  

  Each of the 11 criminal decisions issued in the U.S. Supreme Court’s recently concluded term is independently important, but taken together, they reveal trends in the court’s broader approach to criminal law, presenting both pitfalls and opportunities for defendants and their counsel, says Kenneth Notter at MoloLamken.

• Class Actions At The Circuit Courts: July Lessons

  

  In this month's review of class action appeals, Mitchell Engel at Shook Hardy considers cases touching on pre- and post-conviction detainment conditions, communications with class representatives, when the American Pipe tolling doctrine stops applying to modified classes, and more.

• 7th Circ. Motorola Ruling Raises Stakes Of DTSA Litigation

  

  The Seventh Circuit’s recent ruling in Motorola v. Hytera gives plaintiffs a powerful tool to recover damages, greatly increasing the incentive to bring Defend Trade Secrets Act claims against defendants with large global sales because those sales could generate large settlements, say attorneys at MoFo.

• Series

  After Chevron: Bid Protest Litigation Will Hold Steady For Now

  

  Though the substantive holding of Loper Bright is unlikely to affect bid protests because questions of statutory interpretation are rare, the spirit of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision may signal a general trend away from agency deference even on the complex technical issues that often arise, say Kayleigh Scalzo and Andrew Guy at Covington.

• Challenging Prosecutors' Use Of Defendants' Jail Phone Calls

  

  Although it’s an uphill battle under current case law, counsel for pretrial detainees may be able to challenge prosecutors’ use of jail-recorded phone calls between the defendant and their attorney by taking certain advance measures, say Jim McLoughlin and Fielding Huseth at Moore & Van Allen.

• How NJ Worker Status Ruling Benefits Real Estate Industry

  

  In Kennedy v. Weichert, the New Jersey Supreme Court recently said a real estate agent’s employment contract would supersede the usual ABC test analysis to determine his classification as an independent contractor, preserving operational flexibility for the industry — and potentially others, say Jason Finkelstein and Dalila Haden at Cole Schotz.

• 3 Policyholder Tips After Calif. Ruling Denying D&O Coverage

  

  A California decision from June, Practice Fusion v. Freedom Specialty Insurance, denying a company's claim seeking reimbursement under a directors and officers insurance policy for its settlement with the Justice Department, highlights the importance of coordinating coverage for all operational risks and the danger of broad exclusionary policy language, says Geoffrey Fehling at Hunton.

• Opinion

  Now More Than Ever, Lawyers Must Exhibit Professionalism

  

  As society becomes increasingly fractured and workplace incivility is on the rise, attorneys must champion professionalism and lead by example, demonstrating how lawyers can respectfully disagree without being disagreeable, says Edward Casmere at Norton Rose.

• Opinion

  High Court Made Profound Mistake In Tossing Purdue Deal

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision to throw out Purdue Pharma's Chapter 11 plan jeopardizes a multistate agreement that would provide approximately $7 billion in much-needed relief to help fight the opioid epidemic, with states now likely doomed to spend years chasing individual defendants across the globe, says Swain Wood at Morningstar.

• Series

  After Chevron: Piercing FEMA Authority Is Not Insurmountable

  

  While the Federal Emergency Management Agency's discretionary authority continues to provide significant protection from claims under the Administrative Procedure Act, Loper Bright is a blow to the argument that Congress gave FEMA unfettered discretion to administer its own programs, says Wendy Huff Ellard at Baker Donelson.