Expert Analysis

• DOJ China Container Indictments Signal Global Cartel Risk

  

  The U.S. Department of Justice's recent announcement that it had indicted Chinese manufacturers for conspiring to drive up the price of shipping containers sold in the U.S. illustrates the Antitrust Division's interest in pursuing overseas cartel conduct, especially in China, signaling that multinational companies with employees abroad should strengthen antitrust compliance to avoid running afoul of U.S. national security policy, say attorneys at Squire Patton.

• More Cos. Will Copy SpaceX's Shareholder Proposal Opt-Out

  

  For more than 80 years, the shareholder proposal looked like a federal right guaranteed to all public company investors, but after SpaceX opted out before its recent initial public offering, other companies are likely to follow, says Mohsen Manesh at the University of Oregon School of Law.

• Lessons For Cos. From Nixed Apple Watch Greenwashing Suit

  

  A California federal court's recent decision in Dib v. Apple, a putative class action challenging carbon-neutral marketing statements made about the Apple Watch, provides meaningful guidance on how such claims may be defeated at the pleading stage, especially where they hinge on third-party verification, say attorneys at Mintz.

• The Hidden Settlement Problem In Complex Securities Cases

  

  The Second Circuit's recent decision in Knapp v. Barclays is a reminder that in securities cases with complex corporate records, the tracing picture is rarely as settled as the complaint suggests, and that conversations in the early stages require everyone to work from the same underlying facts, says Peter Kamminga at JAMS.

• $885M IBS Drug Verdict Tests Pay-For-Delay Limits

  

  The outcome in the Amitiza Antitrust Litigation is significant because it is the first jury trial win for private antitrust plaintiffs in a suit challenging a patent settlement reverse payment since the U.S. Supreme Court adopted the rule-of-reason legal framework in 2013, offering a blueprint for pay-for-delay claims, say attorneys at Katten.

• Series

  Power To The Paralegals: Burnout As A Structural Problem

  

  Law firm leadership can best retain their paralegals not by encouraging self-care, but by seeking top-down structural solutions for the quiet proliferation of responsibilities and the vicarious exposure to client trauma that particularly drive burnout in this vital role, says Erika Sneeringer at Brockstedt Mandalas.

• 11th Circ. Ruling Reflects Shift In Digital Consent Frameworks

  

  The Eleventh Circuit's recent decision in Tejon v. Zeus Networks that a browsewrap terms-of-service hyperlink was insufficiently conspicuous to bind a consumer to an arbitration agreement could accelerate a broader industry shift to clickwrap as the baseline for enforceable digital consent, say attorneys at Sheppard.

• Class Actions At The Circuit Courts: June Lessons

  

  In this month's review of class action appeals, Mitchell Engel at Shook Hardy discusses five recent rulings from cases involving allegations of internet data misuse, consumer fraud claims, immigration, insurance and First Amendment violation claims.

• Ill. Law Firm MSO Bill Clashes With Court Power, Ethics Rules

  

  An Illinois bill prohibiting law firms from certain business arrangements with management service organizations, sent to the governor for signature last week, encroaches upon the courts' constitutional powers and goes beyond the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct in regulating investment in law-related services, says Matthew O’Hara at Smith Gambrell.

• 3rd Circ. Decision Sheds Light On BIPA Bank Exemption

  

  The Third Circuit's recent decision in McGoveran v. Amazon illuminates how courts are extending the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act's financial institution carveout beyond banks and insurers to technology vendors and other businesses handling biometric data, a defendant-friendly shift that still casts uncertainty around BIPA's enforcement, say attorneys at Dorsey & Whitney.

• Opinion

  State Courts Must Be Gatekeepers Of Expert Testimony

  

  Based on my experience in the state judiciary, emulating federal courts' role as gatekeepers of expert witness testimony would help state court judges maintain the appearance of impartiality and assist juries, thus enhancing the overall confidence people have in their justice system, says Lorie Gildea at Greenberg Traurig.

• Series

  Moshing Makes Me A Better Lawyer

  

  Entering a mosh pit is much like entering the practice of law — it is difficult, you have to know both the written and unwritten rules, and conduct yourself according to the expectations of each community, says Christopher Deubert at Constangy Brooks.

• Okla. Reforms Will Curb Oil, Gas Royalty Litigation Risk

  

  Recent amendments to Oklahoma's Production Revenue Standards Act — the most comprehensive in decades — raise the stakes for true noncompliance with the state's oil and gas royalty payment framework, while offering operators clearer rules, defined interest boundaries and predictable exits from prolonged suspense situations, say attorneys at GableGotwals.

• Why Highly Specialized Experts May Risk Exclusion At Trial

  

  Expert witnesses with highly specific areas of focus may be vulnerable to exclusion in court, making it important for attorneys to check how potential witnesses' qualifications can be bolstered by their publications and other professional activities, say Evan Weisberg and Christopher Cunio at Hunton, and Kevin Cahill at FTI Consulting.

• Gatorade Suit Offers Lessons On Product Performance Claims

  

  A proposed class action in New York federal court disputing PepsiCo's claim that Gatorade "hydrates better than water" presents a broad challenge to the way food and beverage companies communicate product benefits — and the risks that arise when marketing claims outpace the evidence supporting them, says Pejman Javaheri at Juris Law Group.