Expert Analysis

• When Oral Settlements Reached In Mediation Are Enforceable

  

  A recent decision by the New Jersey Appellate Division illustrates the difficulties that may arise in trying to enforce an oral settlement agreement reached in mediation, but adherence to certain practices can improve the likelihood that such an agreement will be binding, says Richard Mason at MasonADR.

• Series

  Being An EMT Makes Me A Better Lawyer

  

  While some of my experiences as an emergency medical technician have been unusually painful and searing, the skills I’ve learned — such as triage, empathy and preparedness — are just as useful in my work as a restructuring lawyer, says Marshall Huebner at Davis Polk.

• In Debate Over High Court Wording, 'Wetland' Remains Murky

  

  Though the U.S. Supreme Court's decision limiting the Clean Water Act’s wetlands jurisdiction is now a year old, Sackett v. EPA's practical consequences for property owners are still evolving as federal agencies and private parties advance competing interpretations of the court's language and methods for distinguishing wetlands in lower courts, says Neal McAliley at Carlton Fields.

• Navigating Title VII Compliance And Litigation Post-Muldrow

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Muldrow v. St. Louis has broadened the scope of Title VII litigation, meaning employers must reassess their practices to ensure compliance across jurisdictions and conduct more detailed factual analyses to defend against claims effectively, say Robert Pepple and Christopher Stevens at Nixon Peabody.

• How CFPB Credit Card Rules Slot Into Broader Considerations

  

  Swirling legal challenges against the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's recent rulemaking concerning credit card late fees raise questions about how regulated entities should respond to the bureau's rules — and how quickly they should act, say Caitlin Mandel and Elizabeth Ireland at Winston & Strawn.

• Perspectives

  Public Interest Attorneys Are Key To Preserving Voting Rights

  

  Fourteen states passed laws restricting or limiting voting access last year, highlighting the need to support public interest lawyers who serve as bulwarks against such antidemocratic actions — especially in an election year, says Verna Williams at Equal Justice Works.

• Insurer Quota-Sharing Lessons From $112M Bad Faith Verdict

  

  In Indiana GRQ v. American Guarantee and Liability Insurance, an Indiana federal jury recently issued a landmark $112 million bad faith verdict, illustrating why insurers must understand the interplay between bad faith law and quota-sharing before entering into these relatively new arrangements, say Jason Reichlyn and Christopher Sakauye at Dykema. 

• Lessons On Challenging Class Plaintiffs' Expert Testimony

  

  In class actions seeking damages, plaintiffs are increasingly using expert opinions to establish predominance, but several recent rulings from California federal courts shed light on how defendants can respond, say Jennifer Romano and Raija Horstman at Crowell & Moring.

• Novel Applications May Fizzle After Fed Master Account Wins

  

  Two recent federal court rulings that upheld decisions denying master account applications from two fintech-focused banks are noteworthy for depository institutions with novel charters that wish to have direct access to the Federal Reserve's payment channels and settle transactions in central bank money, say attorneys at Davis Polk.

• Exploring An Alternative Model Of Litigation Finance

  

  A new model of litigation finance, most aptly described as insurance-backed litigation funding, differs from traditional funding in two key ways, and the process of securing it involves three primary steps, say Bob Koneck, Christopher Le Neve Foster and Richard Butters at Atlantic Global Risk LLC.

• Cell Therapy Cos. Must Beware Limits Of Patent Safe Harbors

  

  Though developers of gene and cell therapy products commonly assume that a legal safe harbor protects them from patent infringement suits, recent case law shows that not all preapproval uses of patented technology are necessarily protected, say Natasha Daughtrey and Joshua Weinger at Goodwin.

• Why Employers Shouldn't Overreact To Protest Activities

  

  Recent decisions from the First Circuit in Kinzer v. Whole Foods and the National Labor Relations Board in Home Depot hold eye-opening takeaways about which employee conduct is protected as "protest activity" and make a case for fighting knee-jerk reactions that could result in costly legal proceedings, says Frank Shuster at Constangy.

• Devil's In The Details On FDCPA, Article III Standing

  

  The Third Circuit’s recent decision in Barclift v. Keystone Credit Services concerning the alleged harm needed to support a class action under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act is in line with other circuits' interpretations of Article III of the Constitution, notwithstanding disagreement over the minutiae of a proper Article III analysis, says Nick Agnello at Burr & Forman.

• 11th Circ. Ruling May Foreshadow Ch. 15 Clashes

  

  The Eleventh Circuit's recent decision in In re: Talal Qais Abdulmunem Al Zawawi has introduced a split from the Second Circuit regarding whether debtors in foreign proceedings must have a domicile, calling attention to the understudied nature of Chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code, say attorneys at Cleary.

• What The Justices' Copyright Damages Ruling Didn't Address

  

  While the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Warner Chappell v. Nealy clarified when a copyright owner may recover damages in jurisdictions that apply the so-called discovery rule, it did not settle the overriding question of whether the Copyright Act even permits applying the rule, say Ivy Estoesta and William Milliken at Sterne Kessler.