Expert Analysis

• Setting The Stage For High Court BofA Escrow Interest Case

  

  Dori Bailey and Curtis Johnson at Bond Schoeneck examine relevant legislation and case law dating back 200 years ahead of oral arguments at the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday in Cantero v. Bank of America, the outcome of which will determine whether state laws governing mortgage escrow accounts can be enforced against national banks.

• High Court Forfeiture Case Again Pits Text Against Purpose

  

  In oral arguments Tuesday in McIntosh v. U.S., the U.S. Supreme Court will consider whether a federal court can impose asset forfeiture on a defendant even if it doesn’t comply with timing rules, which may affect the broader interpretation of procedural deadlines — and tees up the latest battle between textualism and purposivism, say Anden Chow and Christian Bale at MoloLamken.

• Using Arbitration And Class Waivers As Privacy Suit Tools

  

  Amid a surge in data breach class actions over the last few years, several federal court decisions indicate that arbitration clauses and class action waiver provisions can be possible alternatives to public court battles and potentially reduce the costs of privacy litigation, say Mark Olthoff and Courtney Klaus at Polsinelli.

• 6 Pointers For Attys To Build Trust, Credibility On Social Media

  

  In an era of information overload, attorneys can use social media strategically — from making infographics to leveraging targeted advertising — to cut through the noise and establish a reputation among current and potential clients, says Marly Broudie at SocialEyes Communications.

• Justices Stay The Course In Maritime Choice-Of-Law Ruling

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court's narrowly drawn decision in Great Lakes Insurance v. Raiders Retreat Realty, enforcing the underlying insurance contract's choice-of-law provision, carefully distinguishes those provisions from forum selection clauses, and ensures that courts will not apply its precepts outside the maritime context, says John Coyle at the University of North Carolina.

• More Than Drugs At Stake In High Court's 'Blind Mule' Case

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court's eventual decision in Diaz v. U.S., evaluating whether expert witnesses may testify that most defendants caught with drugs at the border know they are transporting drugs, could have implications for prosecuting everything from complex financial crimes to gun and drug cases, says Kenneth Notter at MoloLamken.

• Why Fla. High Court Adopting Apex Doctrine Is Monumental

  

  The Florida Supreme Court recently solidified the apex doctrine in the Sunshine State, an important development that extends the scope of the doctrine in the state to include both corporate and government officials, and formalizes the requirements for a high-level corporate official to challenge a request for a deposition, says Laura Renstrom at Holland & Knight.

• Why Biz Groups Disagree On Ending Chevron Deference

  

  Two amicus briefs filed in advance of last month's U.S. Supreme Court oral arguments in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo highlight contrasting views on whether the doctrine of Chevron deference promotes or undermines the stable regulatory environment that businesses require, say Wyatt Kendall and Sydney Brogden at Morris Manning.

• Del. Ruling Stands Out In Thorny Noncompete Landscape

  

  In Cantor Fitzgerald v. Ainslie, the Delaware Supreme Court last month upheld the enforceability of forfeiture-for-competition provisions in limited partnership agreements, providing a noteworthy opinion amid a time of increasing disfavor toward noncompetes and following a string of Chancery Court rulings deeming them unreasonable, say Margaret Butler and Steven Goldberg at BakerHostetler.

• Class Actions At The Circuit Courts: February Lessons

  

  In this month's review of class action appeals, Mitchell Engel at Shook Hardy discusses five notable circuit court decisions on topics from property taxes to veteran's rights — and provides key takeaways for counsel on issues including class representative intervention, wage-and-hour dispute evidence and ascertainability requirements.

• Google Patent Case Is A Claim Construction Litigation Lesson

  

  The Federal Circuit's recent precedential decision in Google v. EcoFactor, which held that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board erred in the claim construction it had unknowingly adopted, shows that litigators should be alert to claim construction issues that masquerade as something else, says Roy Wepner at Kaplan Breyer.

• A Post-Mortem Analysis Of Stroock's Demise

  

  After the dissolution of 147-year-old firm Stroock late last year shook up the legal world, a post-mortem analysis of the data reveals a long list of warning signs preceding the firm’s collapse — and provides some insight into how other firms might avoid the same disastrous fate, says Craig Savitzky at Leopard Solutions.

• NY's Revamped Card Surcharge Ban Is Unique Among States

  

  Newly revised New York legislation bolsters the state's ban on credit card surcharges, potentially reinvigorating similar laws across the country despite the fact that many of them have been ruled unconstitutional, say Tom Witherspoon and Audrey Carroll at Stinson.

• How VA Court Change Is Affecting Insurance Disputes

  

  The expansion of the Virginia Court of Appeals' jurisdiction to include review of decisions involving insurance coverage stands to significantly grow the body of related case law, likely to the benefit of policyholders, as evident in the recent decision in Bowman II v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co., say Michael Levine and Olivia Bushman at Hunton.

• Fed. Circ. Ruling Helps Clarify When Gov't Clawback Is Timely

  

  The Federal Circuit’s examination of claims accrual in a January decision that allows the Defense Contract Management Agency to pursue overpayment claims under a cost-reimbursement contract serves as a reminder that the government can lose such claims by waiting too long to file, say Evan Sherwood and Peter Hutt at Covington.