Expert Analysis

• 7th Circ. Mootness Fee Case May Curb Frivolous Merger Suits

  

  On April 15, the Seventh Circuit in Jorge Alcarez v. Akorn Inc. mapped out a framework for courts to consider mootness fees paid to individual shareholders after the voluntary dismissal of a challenge to a public company merger, which could encourage objections to mootness fees and reduce the number of frivolous merger challenges filed, say attorneys at Skadden.

• 4 Ways To Refresh Your Law Firm's Marketing Strategy

  

  With many BigLaw firms relying on an increasingly obsolete marketing approach that prioritizes stiff professionalism over authentic connection, adopting a few key communications strategies to better connect with today's clients and prospects can make all the difference, say Eric Pacifici and Kevin Henderson at SMB Law.

• What 3rd Circ. Trust Ruling Means For Securitization Market

  

  Mercedes Tunstall and Michael Gambro at Cadwalader break down the Third Circuit's March decision in Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. National Collegiate Master Student Loan Trust, as well as predict next steps in the litigation and the implications of the decision for servicers and the securitization industry as a whole.

• 9th Circ. Ruling Puts Teeth Into Mental Health Parity Claims

  

  In its recent finding that UnitedHealth applied an excessively strict review process for substance use disorder treatment claims, the Ninth Circuit provided guidance on how to plead a Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act violation and took a step toward achieving mental health parity in healthcare, says Mark DeBofsky at DeBofsky Law.

• Using Rule 23(f) To Review Class Certification Orders

  

  Since plaintiffs on average are prevailing in certifying a class more often than not, the best-positioned class action defendants are those prepared to pursue relief under Rule 23(f) well before the district court issues its certification decision, say attorneys at K&L Gates.

• Perspectives

  Justices' Forfeiture Ruling Resolves Nonexistent Split

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in McIntosh v. U.S., holding that a trial court’s failure to enter a preliminary criminal forfeiture order prior to sentencing doesn’t bar its entry later, is unusual in that it settles an issue on which the lower courts were not divided — but it may apply in certain forfeiture disputes, says Stefan Cassella at Asset Forfeiture Law.

• Opinion

  SC's Courts Have It Wrong On Amazon Marketplace Sales Tax

  

  The South Carolina Supreme Court should step in and correct the misguided change in tax law effectuated by lower court rulings that found Amazon owes state sales tax for marketplace sales made prior to the U.S. Supreme Court’s Wayfair v. South Dakota decision in 2018, says Hayes Holderness at the University of Richmond.

• What Have We Learned In The Year Since Warhol?

  

  In the almost year since the U.S. Supreme Court decided Andy Warhol Foundation v. Goldsmith, which was widely seen as potentially chilling to creative endeavors, seven subsequent decisions — while illuminating to some extent — do not indicate any trend toward a radical departure from prior precedents in fair use cases, says ​​​​​​​Jose Sariego at Bilzin Sumberg.

• The Practical Effects Of Justices' Arbitration Exemption Ruling

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision in Bissonnette v. LePage Bakeries, that a transportation worker need not work in the transportation industry to be exempt from the Federal Arbitration Act, may negatively affect employers' efforts to mitigate class action risk via arbitration agreement enforcement, say Charles Schoenwetter and Eric Olson at Bowman and Brooke.

• Binance Ruling Spotlights Muddled Post-Morrison Landscape

  

  The Second Circuit's recent decision in Williams v. Binance highlights the judiciary's struggle to apply the U.S. Supreme Court's Morrison v. National Australia Bank ruling to digital assets, and illustrates how Morrison's territorial limits on the federal securities laws have become convoluted, say Andrew Rhys Davies and Jessica Lewis at WilmerHale.

• Practical Pointers After Fed. Circ. Double-Patenting Decision

  

  With the Federal Circuit recently denying a full court review of In re: Cellect, a decision regarding obviousness-type double-patenting, affected patent family holders should evaluate their rights through both patent prosecution and future litigation lenses to minimize risks, say Austin Lorch and Jeff Wolfson at Haynes Boone.

• Sorting Circuit Split On Foreign Arbitration Treaty's Authority

  

  A circuit court split over whether the New York Convention supersedes state law barring arbitration in certain disputes — a frequent issue in insurance matters — has left lower courts to rely on conflicting decisions, but the doctrine of self-executing treaties makes it clear that the convention overrules state law, says Gary Shaw at Pillsbury.

• Corp. Transparency Act Could Survive 11th Circ. Several Ways

  

  If the Eleventh Circuit upholds an Alabama federal court’s injunction against the Corporate Transparency Act, the anti-money laundering law could persist as a narrower version that could moot some constitutional challenges, but these remedies would likely generate additional regulatory or statutory ambiguities that would result in further litigation, say attorneys at Perkins Coie.

• Del. Match.com Ruling Maintains Precedent In Time Of Change

  

  Despite speculation that the Delaware Supreme Court could drive away corporations if it lowered the bar for business judgment review in its Match.com stockholder ruling, the court broke its recent run of controversial precedent-busting decisions by upholding, and arguably strengthening, minority stockholder protections against controller coercion, say Renee Zaytsev and Marc Ayala at Boies Schiller.

• The Future Of BIPA Insurance Litigation After Visual Pak

  

  A recent Illinois appellate court decision, National Fire Insurance v. Visual Pak, may have altered the future of insurance litigation under the state's Biometric Information Privacy Act by diametrically opposing a prominent Seventh Circuit ruling that found insurance coverage for violations of the act, say attorneys at Jenner & Block.