Expert Analysis

• 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.

• What 2 Rulings On Standing Mean For DEI Litigation

  

  Recent federal court decisions in the Fearless Fund and Hello Alice cases shed new light on the ongoing wave of challenges to diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives, with opposite conclusions on whether the plaintiffs had standing to sue, say attorneys at Moore & Van Allen.

• Perspectives

  High Court Ruling Leaves Chance For Civil Forfeiture Reform

  

  Though advocates for civil forfeiture reform did not prevail in Culley v. Marshall last month, concerns voiced by a majority of the U.S. Supreme Court justices potentially leave the door open to consider stricter limits in future cases, say attorneys at Dykema.

• 4 Important Events In Bank Regulation: A Midyear Review

  

  The first six months of 2024 have been fairly stable for the banking industry, though U.S. Supreme Court decisions and proposals from regulators have significantly affected the regulatory standards applicable to insured depository institutions, says Christina Grigorian at Katten.

• Perspectives

  NY Chief Judge Spotlights Need To Strengthen Public Defense

  

  In a recent concurrence in People v. Watkins, New York Chief Judge Rowan Wilson called attention to the necessity for greater investment in public defense services, highlighting not only the urgency of current crises, but the need to embrace a more ambitious vision of equal right to counsel, says Corey Stoughton at Selendy Gay.

• The Fed. Circ. In May: A Major Shift In Design Patent Law

  

  The Federal Circuit's recent en banc decision in LKQ v. GM overruled three decades of precedent and adopted a new standard for assessing the obviousness of design patents, leaving many questions unanswered, say Sean Murray and Jeremiah Helm at Knobbe Martens.

• Series

  Skiing And Surfing Make Me A Better Lawyer

  

  The skills I’ve learned while riding waves in the ocean and slopes in the mountains have translated to my legal career — developing strong mentor relationships, remaining calm in difficult situations, and being prepared and able to move to a backup plan when needed, says Brian Claassen at Knobbe Martens.

• Justices' Removal Ruling Presents Hurdles, But Offers Clarity

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Campos-Chaves v. Garland and two other consolidated cases endorses a multistep notice practice that could impair noncitizens' access to adequate judicial notice, but its resolution of a longstanding circuit split also provides much-needed clarity, says Devin Connolly at Reeves Immigration Law Group.

• Class Actions At The Circuit Courts: June Lessons

  

  In this month's review of class action appeals, Mitchell Engel at Shook Hardy considers two recent decisions from the Third and Tenth Circuits, and identifies practice tips around class action settlements and standing in securities litigation.

• Unpacking The Circuit Split Over A Federal Atty Fee Rule

  

  Federal circuit courts that have addressed Rule 41(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are split as to whether attorney fees are included as part of the costs of a previously dismissed action, so practitioners aiming to recover or avoid fees should tailor arguments to the appropriate court, says Joseph Myles and Lionel Lavenue at Finnegan.

• Justices' 'Blind Mule' Ruling Won't Change Defense Strategy

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision last week in Diaz v. U.S., holding that expert witnesses can testify broadly about the mental state of “most people” in a group, simply affirms the status quo for the majority of defendants, and is unlikely to change defense counsel’s strategy at trial, says Walter Gonçalves at the Arizona Federal Public Defender's Office.

• NJ Justices Clarify First-Party Indemnification Availability

  

  In Boyle v. Huff, the New Jersey Supreme Court recently held that indemnification can be available in first-party claims, resolving an open question and setting up contracting parties for careful negotiations around indemnity clauses, says Todd Leon at Marshall Dennehey.

• Takeaways From Justices' Redemption Insurance Decision

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Connelly v. U.S. examines how to determine the fair market value of shares in a closely held company for estate tax purposes, and clarifies how life insurance held by the company to enable redemption of a decedent’s shares affects that calculation, says Evelyn Haralampu at Burns & Levinson.

• Arbitration Implications Of High Court Coinbase Ruling

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court's recent Coinbase v. Suski ruling not only reaffirmed the long-standing principle that arbitration is a matter of contract, but also established new and more general principles concerning the courts' jurisdiction to decide challenges to delegation clauses and the severability rule, say Tamar Meshel at the University of Alberta.