-
Recent securities cases demonstrate the difficulty in discerning a clear difference between statements made in connection with the purchase or sale of securities and those that aren't, with that line more likely attributable to individualized factual situations than to any doctrinal differences of opinion between various courts, says Samuel Groner at Fried Frank.
-
The New Jersey Supreme Court's recent decision in Mist Pharmaceuticals v. Berkley Insurance, barring directors and officers coverage, serves as a cautionary tale for private equity executives serving in overlapping roles at sponsor and portfolio companies, say attorneys at Reed Smith.
-
Despite the Eleventh Circuit's 2025 decision in Ismael v. Roundtree sparking concern that summary judgment could become more difficult for employers in discrimination and retaliation cases, courts continue to examine whether the employer's explanation, decision-making process and contemporaneous record tell a consistent story, say attorneys at Krevolin Horst.
-
The Federal Circuit's recent decision in Enanta v. Pfizer explores and clarifies the limits of what can be corrected in a patent application, even if the error is obvious, say attorneys at Knobbe Martens.
-
After the vacatur of the Fifth Circuit’s holding that the U.S. Constitution requires bond hearings for detained noncriminal noncitizens, practitioners should go back to filing habeas petitions, pending the court's en banc rehearing, says Kemal Hepsen at Mandamus Lawyers.
-
In the second quarter of 2026, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office updated its subject matter eligibility declarations in line with its increasingly permissive patent eligibility stance, while the Federal Circuit rigorously applied the Alice framework in a decision that highlighted risks facing patent claims that utilize artificial intelligence and machine learning, say attorneys at Banner Witcoff.
-
The second quarter of 2026 featured a trio of auto insurance opinions from Illinois' appellate courts, addressing a notice requirement, narrowing insurers' exposure for delayed payment of underinsured motorist claims, and creating a district split on coverage for employee-drivers under employers' policies, says Matthew Fortin at BatesCarey.
-
Recent Fourth Circuit and California federal court decisions blocking state greenwashing statutes on First Amendment grounds reveal a tension at the heart of environmental marketing regulation — while states want clarity, courts aren't prepared to let legislatures flatly ban categories of truthful commercial speech, say attorneys at DLA Piper.
-
The Eleventh Circuit's recent ruling certifying to the Florida and Georgia Supreme Courts the question of whether insurers must provide coverage against suits claiming policyholders improperly distributed opioids may ultimately result in a counterbalance to the Delaware line of cases denying coverage for government opioid suits, say attorneys at Pillsbury.
-
Series
Instructing a law school course on U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission investigations has made me a more thoughtful, deliberate practitioner because it requires me to continually reassess and challenge what I know about securities law enforcement, how I know it and how best to explain it, says David Chase at Miami Law.
-
The U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision in Monsanto Co. v. Durnell concerns herbicide labeling regulated by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, but also carries weighty implications for preemption of state law labeling claims against drug manufacturers, say Terry Henry and Ann Querns at Blank Rome and Melanie Leney at Aurobindo Pharma.
-
The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Pung v. Isabella County, Michigan, that taxpayers are not entitled to fair market value of real property seized to satisfy a tax debt shifts attention to the fairness of state and local auction procedures, and whether taxpayers claiming surplus proceeds face unwarranted hurdles, say attorneys at Miller Canfield.
-
The Second Circuit recently held that a properly drafted contractual blocker — which caps an investor's beneficial ownership below 10% and automatically voids any transaction that would breach the cap — shields the investor from Section 16(b) liability, demonstrating that blockers have teeth, say attorneys at Sheppard.
-
Repeated efforts to create a consistent, predictable patent eligibility standard under Section 101 have centered on replacing judge-made exceptions with new statutory language, but the better fix is to align examination standards with how courts actually apply eligibility doctrine, says former Patent Trial and Appeal Board judge Amee Shah.
-
Opinion
The federal Qualified Immunity Abolition Act, introduced earlier this year and described by the bill sponsors as a federal-officer measure, would in actuality reach the entire universe of Section 1983 defendants, a distinction that matters as much to defense counsel as to plaintiffs, says attorney V. James DeSimone.