Expert Analysis

• Takeaways From Tossed Deal In Visa, Mastercard Class Action

  

  Given the rejection of a proposed deal in the long-running merchant antitrust class action against Visa and Mastercard in New York federal court, sweetening the proposed settlement pot likely will not be an option, leaving few possible outcomes including splitting the class and allowing opt-outs, say attorneys at Davis Wright.

• Weight-Loss Drugs May Spur Next Major Mass Tort

  

  With lawsuits concerning Ozempic and similar weight-loss drugs potentially becoming the next major mass tort in the U.S., companies should consider key defense strategies ranging from alternate dispute resolution to enhanced drug safety, say Dino Haloulos and Jarif Khan at Foley & Mansfield.

• And Now A Word From The Panel: Rare MDL Moments

  

  Following a recent trend of rare moments in baseball, there are a few rarities this year in multidistrict litigation panel practice, including an unusually high rate of petition grants, and, in one session, a two-week delay from hearing session day to the first decision, says Alan Rothman at Sidley.

• Series

  Being A Luthier Makes Me A Better Lawyer

  

  When I’m not working as an appellate lawyer, I spend my spare time building guitars — a craft known as luthiery — which has helped to enhance the discipline, patience and resilience needed to write better briefs, says Rob Carty at Nichols Brar.

• 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.

• 2 Lessons From Calif. Overtime Wages Ruling

  

  A California federal court's recent decision finding that Home Depot did not purposely dodge overtime laws sheds light on what constitutes a good faith dispute, and the extent to which employers have discretion to define employees' workdays, says Michael Luchsinger at Segal McCambridge.

• American Airlines ESG Ruling Could Alter ERISA Landscape

  

  The Spence v. American Airlines ESG trial, speeding toward a conclusion in a Texas federal court, could foretell a dramatic expansion in ERISA liability, with plan sponsors vulnerable to claims that they didn't foresee short-term dips in stock prices, say attorneys at Mayer Brown.

• SVB Ch. 11 Shows Importance Of Filing Proof Of Claim Early

  

  After a New York bankruptcy court’s recent ruling in SVB’s Chapter 11 case denied late claims filing requests related to post-bar date events, parties with potential claims against a debtor may need to seriously consider filing protective proofs of claim, says Kyle Arendsen at Squire Patton.

• Del. Dispatch: 27.6% Stockholder Not A Controller

  

  The Delaware Court of Chancery's recent decision in Sciannella v. AstraZeneca — which found that the pharma giant, a 26.7% stockholder of Viela Bio Inc., was not a controller of Viela, despite having management control — shows that overall context matters when challenging transactions on breach of fiduciary duty grounds, say attorneys at Fried Frank.

• 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.

• 2 Rulings Serve As Conversion Fee Warnings For Banks

  

  A comparison of the different outcomes in Wright v. Capital One in a Virginia federal court, and in Guerrero v. Bank of America in a North Carolina federal court, highlights how banks must be careful in describing how currency exchange fees and charges are determined in their customer agreements, say attorneys at Weiner Brodsky.

• Dueling Calif. Rulings Offer Insight On 401(k) Forfeiture Suits

  

  Two recent decisions from California federal courts regarding novel Employee Retirement Income Security Act claims around 401(k) forfeitures provide early tea leaves for companies that may face similar litigation, offering reasons for both optimism and concern over the future direction of the law, say Ashley Johnson and Jennafer Tryck at Gibson Dunn.

• 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.

• Loss Causation Ruling Departs From Usual Securities Cases

  

  A California federal court recently dismissed Ramos v. Comerica, finding that the allegations failed to establish loss causation, but the reasoning is in tension with the pleading-stage approaches generally followed by both courts and economists in securities fraud litigation, say Jesse Jensen and Aasiya Glover at Bernstein Litowitz.