Expert Analysis

• Employer Lessons From Nixed Calif. Arbitration Agreement

  

  A California state appeals court’s recent decision to throw out an otherwise valid arbitration agreement, where an employee claimed a confusing electronic signature system led her to agree to unfair terms, should alert employers to scrutinize any waivers or signing procedures that may appear to unconscionably favor the company, say Guillermo Tello and Monique Eginli at Clark Hill.

• Ch. 11 Ruling Highlights 'Two-Step' Challenges In 4th Circ.

  

  A North Carolina bankruptcy court’s recent ruling in Bestwall’s Chapter 11 case, and the decision's interpretation of Fourth Circuit law, suggests that, compared to other circuits, it may be more difficult to dismiss so-called Texas Two-Step bankruptcy cases within the Fourth Circuit, say Brittany Falabella and Kollin Bender at Hirschler Fleischer.

• EEO-1 Ruling May Affect Other Gov't Agency Disclosures

  

  By tightly construing a rarely litigated but frequently asserted term, a California federal court’s ruling that the Freedom of Information Act does not exempt reports to the U.S. Department of Labor on workplace demographics could expand the range of government contractor information susceptible to public disclosure, says John Zabriskie at Foley & Lardner.

• What Retailers Should Note In Calif. Web Tracking Suits

  

  As retailers face a deluge of class actions alleging the use of conventional web analytic tools violate wiretapping and eavesdropping provisions of the California Invasion of Privacy Act, uncovering the path toward a narrow interpretation of the law will largely depend on how these cases proceed, say Matthew Pearson and Kareem Salem at BakerHostetler.

• Sentencing Shift Might Not Help Most White Collar Defendants

  

  Many have lauded the new zero-point offender adjustment in the U.S. sentencing guidelines, which may provide a pathway for noncustodial sentences for first-time offenders — but given the types of cases federal prosecutors often pursue, it likely won't offer much relief to white collar defendants, says Saurish Appleby-Bhattacharjee at BCLP.

• Del. Ruling Adds Momentum For Caremark Plaintiffs

  

  The Delaware Supreme Court's recent opinion in Lebanon County Employees' Retirement Fund v. Collis could be viewed as expanding plaintiffs' ability to viably plead a Caremark claim against directors, so Delaware companies should be on heightened alert and focus on creating a record of board oversight, say attorneys at V&E.

• What's At Stake In High Court NLRB Injunction Case

  

  William Baker at Wigdor examines the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision to hear Starbucks v. McKinney — where it will consider a long-standing circuit split over the standard for evaluating National Labor Relations Board injunction bids — and explains why the justices’ eventual decision, either way, is unlikely to be a significant blow to labor.

• Opinion

  High Court's Gifts Problem Taints Public Corruption Cases

  

  A history of U.S. Supreme Court justices failing to disclose luxurious gifts from wealthy donors coincides with a troubling line of court precedent overturning jury convictions in public corruption cases, indicating that perhaps justices aren't presently fit to be making these decisions, says Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I.

• The Legal Industry Needs A Cybersecurity Paradigm Shift

  

  As law firms face ever-increasing risks of cyberattacks and ransomware incidents, the legal industry must implement robust cybersecurity measures and privacy-centric practices to preserve attorney-client privilege, safeguard client trust and uphold the profession’s integrity, says Ryan Paterson at Unplugged.

• UK Court Ruling Reinforces CMA's Info-Gathering Powers

  

  An English appeals court's recent decision in the BMW and Volkswagen antitrust cases affirmed that the U.K. Competition and Markets Authority can request information from entities outside the U.K., reinstating an important implement in the CMA's investigative toolkit, say lawyers at White & Case.

• Fed. Circ. In Jan.: One Word Can Affect Claim Construction

  

  The Federal Circuit's recent Pacific Biosciences v. Personal Genomics decision highlights how even construction of a simple term can be dispositive, and thus disputed, in view of the specific context provided by the surrounding claim language, say Jeremiah Helm and Sean Murray at Knobbe.

• 5 Reasons Associates Shouldn't Take A Job Just For Money

  

  As a number of BigLaw firms increase salary scales for early-career attorneys, law students and lateral associates considering new job offers should weigh several key factors that may matter more than financial compensation, say Albert Tawil at Lateral Hub and Ruvin Levavi at Power Forward.

• 1869 Case May Pave Off-Ramp For Justices In Trump DQ Fight

  

  In deciding whether former President Donald Trump is disqualified from Colorado's Republican primary ballots, the U.S. Supreme Court could rely on due process principles articulated in a Reconstruction-era case to avert a chaotic or undemocratic outcome, says Gordon Renneisen at Cornerstone Law Group.

• Series

  Playing Competitive Tennis Makes Me A Better Lawyer

  

  My experience playing competitive tennis has highlighted why prioritizing exercise and stress relief, maintaining perspective under pressure, and supporting colleagues in pursuit of a common goal are all key aspects of championing a successful legal career, says Madhumita Datta at Lowenstein Sandler.

• New Strain Of Web Tracking Suits Pose Risks For Retailers

  

  Amid an ongoing surge of California state and federal lawsuits that are using novel theories to allege companies used certain recording technologies to illegally track website users, retailers should take steps to develop a potential argument that customers consented to any alleged uses of these devices, say attorneys at Benesch.