Expert Analysis

• Revisiting TransUnion's Underused Standing Rule, 5 Years On

  

  The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' recent use of the U.S. Supreme Court’s now five-year-old TransUnion v. Ramirez rule specifying that the "mere risk of future harm" isn't concrete enough to support a damages claim presents an opportunity to revisit this underutilized standing rule, say attorneys at Horvitz & Levy.

• 5 Things Associates Must Ask About Their Firm's Merger Plan

  

  The associates who navigate law firm mergers best ask the right questions early, such as inquiring about partners' plans, to assess how the merger could affect their workflow and career path, says Jackie Bokser-LeFebvre at Major Lindsey.

• Uncertainty Looms After Justices' Withdrawal Liability Ruling

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court's recent holding in M&K Employee Solutions v. Trustees of the IAM National Pension Fund increases the unpredictability of withdrawal liability assessments, so employers should prepare for a range of assessments and be equipped to challenge unreasonable ones, say attorneys at Winston Taylor.

• CFTC Trading Rule Can't Police Prediction Markets Yet

  

  The Commodity Futures Trading Commission’s recent efforts to police insider trading in prediction markets through a post-Dodd-Frank anti-fraud rule exposes doctrinal gaps around misappropriation theory, leaving platforms to fill the void with win-rate-based surveillance, says attorney Tamara de Silva.

• Columbia Software IP Ruling Tests Royalty Damages Model

  

  The Federal Circuit's recent decision in Columbia University v. Gen Digital, vacating a damages verdict involving foreign software sales, provides guidance on ambiguities surrounding the worldwide royalty damages model established by the court's decision in Brumfield v. IBG two years ago, say attorneys at Munger Tolles.

• Turning To The Courts When PBM Reform Falls Short

  

  The effectiveness of state laws intended to regulate pharmacy benefit managers remains uncertain, but litigation — utilizing tried-and-true theories like breach of contract and fair dealing — offers another mechanism through which stakeholders may seek relief from PBMs, say attorneys at Reed Smith.

• Opinion

  Immigration Appeals Rule Would Prevent Meaningful Review

  

  Justice Stephen Breyer’s book “Making Our Democracy Work” offers a useful lens through which to consider what is at stake for the Executive Office for Immigration Review's legitimacy as the government asks the D.C. Circuit to revive an interim final rule that would have fast-tracked decisions by Board of Immigration Appeals, says Tara Kennedy at Kennedy Law.

• 2 'Rocket Dockets' And The Rules That Propel Them

  

  The fastest civil trial courts in the country are currently in the Eastern District of Virginia and the Southern District of Florida, and their chief judges provide insights into the court rules that keep them ahead, says Robert Tata at Hunton.

• Retailer Risk Reduction Tips As Email Marketing Suits Surge

  

  Amid a flood of email marketing lawsuits following last year's Washington Supreme Court ruling in Brown v. Old Navy, retailers seeking to avoid high litigation costs can take several steps to reduce risks by focusing on their email subject lines advertising sales, says Gonzalo Mon at Kelley Drye.

• Why Nuclear Licensees Must Watch 2nd Circ.'s Holtec Review

  

  In reviewing a New York federal court's preemption ruling concerning disposal of nuclear materials, the Second Circuit must confront the lower court's recognition of a purpose-based path to field preemption, which could be game-changing for nuclear material licensees, says Andrew Averbach at Womble Bond.

• Calif. Ruling Lowers Bar For Health Data Breach Claims

  

  The California Supreme Court's ruling in J.M. v. Illuminate Education offers protection for non-healthcare companies that maintain health-related data but also adopts a new and more plaintiff-favorable standard for breach of confidentiality that companies maintaining any health-related data should address, say attorneys at Cooley.

• Florida Atty Fees Ruling Could End Expert Testimony Mandate

  

  For over 60 years, Florida appellate courts have required an evidentiary hearing and expert testimony to support the reasonableness of an attorney fee award, but the Florida Sixth District Court of Appeal's recent Ruffenach v. Deutsche Bank National Trust ruling could make substantive changes to this requirement, say attorneys at RumbergerKirk.

• Texas Ruling Leaves Key Oil Royalty Question Unresolved

  

  The Texas Supreme Court's recent decision in Fasken Oil and Ranch v. Puig clarifies that royalty reservations containing “free of cost forever” language do not bar deduction of post-production costs — but it leaves open whether prices producers report to royalty owners should reflect what unaffiliated buyers would pay, says Robert Foss at Hinds Feat Advisors.

• Justices Widen Path For Confiscated Cuban Property Claims

  

  For Americans holding claims to confiscated Cuban property, the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Havana Docks v. Royal Caribbean Cruises means that the expiration of their property interest is no longer a bar and that any company using such property is now a potential defendant, say attorneys at Bracewell.

• Your Next Litigation Hold Should Cover AI Chat Logs

  

  The Delaware Chancery Court’s recent decision in Fortis Advisors v. Krafton to treat a CEO’s artificial intelligence chats as substantive evidence is being read as a discovery warning to litigators, but there is a second duty-to-preserve lesson that is especially pertinent to in-house counsel, say attorneys at Faegre Drinker.