Expert Analysis

• 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.

• How High Court Ruling Is Shaping Homelessness Policies

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court’s June decision in Grants Pass v. Johnson to allow enforcement of local ordinances against overnight camping is already spurring new policies to manage homelessness, but the court's ruling does not grant jurisdictions unfettered power, say Kathryn Kafka and Alex Merritt at Sheppard Mullin.

• DOJ Paths To Limit FARA Fallout From Wynn's DC Circ. Win

  

  After the D.C. Circuit’s recent Attorney General v. Wynn ruling, holding that the government cannot compel retroactive registration under the Foreign Agents Registration Act, the U.S. Department of Justice has a few options to limit the decision’s impact on enforcement, say attorneys at MoFo.

• Series

  Playing Dungeons & Dragons Makes Me A Better Lawyer

  

  Playing Dungeons & Dragons – a tabletop role-playing game – helped pave the way for my legal career by providing me with foundational skills such as persuasion and team building, says Derrick Carman at Robins Kaplan.

• Series

  After Chevron: Challenges Loom For PBGC Actions

  

  After Loper Bright, two recent actions taken by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. already under scrutiny seem destined to be challenged and resolved under the new standard of judicial deference, which will greatly affect employers with potential withdrawal liability exposure, say Robert Perry and David Pixley at Jackson Lewis.

• Unpacking Executive Privilege, Contempt In Recent Cases

  

  The U.S. House of Representatives’ recent move to hold Attorney General Merrick Garland in contempt of Congress is the latest example in a growing trend of executive privilege disputes, and serves as a warning to private citizens and corporate leaders who are in communication with the president, says Kristina Moore at Womble Bond.

• Gilead Drug Ruling Creates Corporate Governance Dilemma

  

  If upheld, a California state appellate court's decision — finding that Gilead is liable for delaying commercialization of a safer HIV drug to maximize profits on another drug — threatens to undermine long-standing rules of corporate law and exposes companies to liability for decisions based on sound business judgment, says Shireen Barday at Pallas.

• Class Action Law Makes An LLC A 'Jurisdictional Platypus'

  

  The applicability of Section 1332(d)(10) of the Class Action Fairness Act is still widely misunderstood — and given the ambiguous nature of limited liability companies, the law will likely continue to confound courts and litigants — so parties should be prepared for a range of outcomes, says Andrew Gunem at Strauss Borrelli.

• 3 Notes For Arbitration Agreements After Calif. Ruling

  

  After last month's California Supreme Court decision in Ramirez v. Charter Communications invalidated several arbitration clauses in the company's employee contracts as unconscionable, companies should ensure their own arbitration agreements steer clear of three major pitfalls identified by the court, say attorneys at Cooley.

• Jarkesy Ruling May Redefine Jury Role In Patent Fraud

  

  Regardless of whether the U.S. Supreme Court’s Jarkesy ruling implicates the direction of inequitable conduct, which requires showing that the patentee made material statements or omissions to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, the decision has created opportunities for defendants to argue more substantively for jury trials than ever before, say attorneys at Cadwalader.

• 3 Leadership Practices For A More Supportive Firm Culture

  

  Traditional leadership styles frequently amplify the inherent pressures of legal work, but a few simple, time-neutral strategies can strengthen the skills and confidence of employees and foster a more collaborative culture, while supporting individual growth and contribution to organizational goals, says Benjamin Grimes at BKG Leadership.

• Ore. Insurance Litigation Is Testing The Bounds After Moody

  

  Despite the Oregon Supreme Court’s attempt to limit application of its 2023 decision in Moody v. Oregon Community Credit Union, which for the first time awarded extracontractual damages stemming from alleged negligent claims handling, recent litigation shows Oregon insurance companies face greater exposure, says Sarah Pozzi at Cozen O’Connor.