Expert Analysis

• Purdue Ch. 11 Ruling Reinforces Importance Of D&O Coverage

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision in Harrington v. Purdue Pharma, holding that a Chapter 11 reorganization cannot discharge claims against a nondebtor without affected claimants' consent, will open new litigation pathways surrounding corporate insolvency and increase the importance of robust directors and officers insurance, says Evan Bolla at Harris St. Laurent.

• Fed. Circ. Percipient Gov't Contract Ruling Is Groundbreaking

  

  The effects of the Federal Circuit's decision last month in Percipient.ai v. U.S. may be limited to commercial product and service suppliers, but it is significant for government procurement in opening the door to protests by suppliers who previously would have lacked standing and Court of Federal Claims jurisdiction, say attorneys at Haynes Boone.

• Series

  After Chevron: No Deference, No Difference For SEC Or CFTC

  

  The Chevron doctrine did not fundamentally alter the interplay between the courts and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission in the development of the securities and commodities laws — and its demise will not do so either, says Dan Berkovitz at Millennium Management.

• Opinion

  Industry Self-Regulation Will Shine Post-Chevron

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court's Loper decision will shape the contours of industry self-regulation in the years to come, providing opportunities for this often-misunderstood practice, says Eric Reicin at BBB National Programs.

• When Patents As Loan Collateral Can Cost You Standing

  

  The Federal Circuit's recent decision in Intellectual Tech v. Zebra Technologies shines a light on loan default provisions' implications for patent infringement litigation, as a default may inadvertently strip a patent owner of constitutional standing to sue over a patent pledged as collateral, say Joseph Marinelli and Suet L. Lee at Irwin IP.

• Justices' Bribery Ruling: A Corrupt Act Isn't Necessarily Illegal

  

  In its Snyder v. U.S. decision last week, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a bribery law does not criminalize gratuities, continuing a trend of narrowing federal anti-corruption laws and scrutinizing public corruption prosecutions that go beyond obvious quid pro quo schemes, say Carrie Cohen and Christine Wong at MoFo.

• 3 Ways Agencies Will Keep Making Law After Chevron

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court clearly thinks it has done something big in overturning the Chevron precedent that had given deference to agencies' statutory interpretations, but regulated parties have to consider how agencies retain significant power to shape the law and its meaning, say attorneys at K&L Gates.

• Roundup

  After Chevron

  

  In the month since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the Chevron deference standard, this Expert Analysis series has featured attorneys discussing the potential impact across 26 different rulemaking and litigation areas.

• Navigating Scrutiny Of Friendly Professional Corps. In Calif.

  

  In light of ongoing scrutiny and challenges to private equity participation in the California healthcare marketplace, particularly surrounding the use of the friendly professional corporation model, management services organizations should consider implementing four best practices, say attorneys at Holland & Knight.

• Series

  After Chevron: Expect Few Changes In ITC Rulemaking

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court's opinion overruling the Chevron doctrine will have less impact on the U.S. International Trade Commission than other agencies administering trade statutes, given that the commission exercises its congressionally granted authority in a manner that allows for consistent decision making at both agency and judicial levels, say attorneys at Polsinelli.

• 6 PTAB Events To Know From The Last 6 Months

  

  The first half of 2024 brought a flurry of Patent Trial and Appeal Board developments that should be considered in post-grant strategies, including proposed rules on discretionary denial and director review, and the first decisions of the Delegated Rehearing Panel, say attorneys at Fish & Richardson.

• Key Takeaways From High Court's Substitute Expert Decision

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent Smith v. Arizona decision, holding that the confrontation clause generally bars prosecutors’ use of a substitute expert witness at trial, will have the most impact in narcotics and violent crime cases, but creative defense lawyers may find it useful in white collar cases, too, say Joshua Naftalis and Melissa Kelley at Pallas Partners.

• Opinion

  Atty Well-Being Efforts Ignore Root Causes Of The Problem

  

  The legal industry is engaged in a critical conversation about lawyers' mental health, but current attorney well-being programs primarily focus on helping lawyers cope with the stress of excessive workloads, instead of examining whether this work culture is even fundamentally compatible with lawyer well-being, says Jonathan Baum at Avenir Guild.

• Parsing Justices' Toss Of Purdue's Controversial Ch. 11 Plan

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court's recent nixing of OxyContin manufacturer Purdue Pharma's Chapter 11 proposal prevents the Sackler family from settling thousands of civil opioid lawsuits without the consent of all of the plaintiffs, and holds profound implications for bankruptcy cases, say attorneys at MoloLamken.

• Calif. Long-Tail Ruling Continues Policyholder-Friendly Trend

  

  The California Supreme Court's recent ruling in Truck Insurance Exchange v. Kaiser Cement & Gypsum, rejecting horizontal policy exhaustion, was the latest in a string of its decisions involving insurance coverage for continuous or progressive injury claims that favor policyholders, say Billie Mandelbaum and David Goodwin at Covington.