Expert Analysis

• Testing AI's Promise For Large-Scale Document Review

  

  Our document-review comparison of attorneys' responsiveness and issue coding decisions versus predictions generated by artificial intelligence across 1,600 documents suggests that these tools can offer a reasonable and reliable basis for improved discovery workflows, provided lawyers understand where guardrails are needed, say attorneys at Redgrave.

• AI Meeting Recaps Pose New Discovery And Privilege Risks

  

  The New York City Bar Association’s recent ethics opinion, cautioning attorneys not to record nonclient conversations with artificial intelligence tools, reflects an emerging view that AI meeting recaps are now a distinct business record category, meaning counsel should set meeting-level controls and apply framework-level updates, says William Wright at Faegre Drinker.

• Class Actions At The Circuit Courts: September Lessons

  

  In this month's review of class action appeals, Mitchell Engel at Shook Hardy discusses six recent rulings involving pecuniary loss in false price comparison advertising, privity in an insurance fee class, antitrust standing, immigration class representatives, retirement beneficiary class commonality, and Rule 23(f) appeals in Fair Labor Standards Act claims.

• What Comes Next For Digital Asset Regs After Clarity Act Flop

  

  After the U.S. Senate recently blocked the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act, agency rulemaking could still offer a near-term remedy, and companies meanwhile should monitor the existing framework assembled from enforcement precedent and case law in the absence of a purpose-built statute, say attorneys at Ropes & Gray.

• How Restitution Became Del. Chancery Court's Middle Ground

  

  Though monetary relief is the Delaware Court of Chancery's favored form of compensating shareholders injured by a breached transaction, Ramadurgam v. Destiny XYZ illustrates how restitution, rather than rescission, can also be a viable option for squeezed-out shareholders to present to the court, says Ashwini Jayaratnam at DarrowEverett.

• Del. Ruling Tests Limits Of Conflicted-Deal Safe Harbors

  

  In Dodiya v. Franklin, the Delaware Court of Chancery recently decided that new legal protections for corporate transactions involving conflicts of interest did not apply, reminding boards that the Section 144 safe harbors amended last year reward careful management and accurate disclosure of known conflicts, say attorneys at Debevoise.

• UBS Settlement Shows Cost Of Delayed AML Fixes

  

  A recent Financial Crimes Enforcement Network settlement with UBS over failure to implement anti-money laundering remediation shows that regulators value prompt fixes and remain focused on the role of financial institutions in facilitating narcotics trafficking and cartel activity, say attorneys at Miller & Chevalier.

• Elder Fraud Risk And Pleading Lessons From Meta Cases

  

  Michael Gilfix and Benjamin Gicqueau at Gilfix & La Poll discuss how a recent Meta youth settlement and an April decision involving social media harms to children may point to a broader pleading framework in cases of elder fraud, and offer practical measures for platforms and consumers seeking to reduce elder fraud risk.

• Hugging Face Attack Is A Warning To The Securities Markets

  

  The recent Hugging Face cyberattack, in which OpenAI's artificial intelligence agents hacked a third party without human instruction, raises questions about how regulators could respond to a similar incident in the securities markets and whether there's a substitute for scienter if no person is behind a financial crime, says Joseph A. Hall at Davis Polk.

• 4 Tips On Expert Gatekeeping From J&J Talc Deal

  

  Johnson & Johnson's successful campaign to exclude plaintiff-side oncologist testimony about whether its talcum powder caused ovarian cancer, which prompted the recent resolution of 70,000 claims, offers lessons on how product liability defendants can reshape risk calculation by rigorously applying expert admissibility rules, say attorneys at Hollingsworth.

• Tracking Texas: When A Promissory Note Is Not A Security

  

  The Texas Business Court's recent application of the so-called family-resemblance test in Thompson v. Anchor Capital offers a useful road map for Texas business owners and lenders navigating the intersection of commercial lending and securities law and determining when promissory notes can be classified as securities, say attorneys at Greenberg Traurig.

• Series

  Playing Bid Whist Makes Me A Better Lawyer

  

  As a child, I viewed bid whist as a family tradition and a source of friendly card game competition, but as a lawyer, I see it as a tool that has helped me cultivate skills like communication, teamwork, risk assessment and composure, says Keyonn Pope at Riley Safer.

• AML Takes Center Stage In Financial Crime Enforcement

  

  Financial Crimes Enforcement Network actions, including its recent anti-money-laundering penalty against UBS, signal that companies should align sanctions and anti-corruption controls with documented risk assessments, quickly escalate and investigate red flags, and test remediation as enforcement intensifies, say attorneys at Bass Berry.

• Banks Should Stay Disciplined As OCC, FDIC Ease Oversight

  

  Despite a newly issued Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. rule that narrows the range of conduct that regulators may require institutions to remediate, prudent risk management suggests banks should still document how they arrive at their risk determinations, say attorneys at Crowell & Moring.

• Teva, Wyeth Show How Claimed Advances Shape Enablement

  

  Two recent Federal Circuit decisions involving method-of-treatment claims — Teva v. Eli Lilly and Wyeth v. AstraZeneca — reached opposite enablement outcomes from strikingly similar procedural postures, but a closer comparison of the cases reveals a three-step framework for understanding the court's reasoning, says Kendall Gurule at Polsinelli.