Featured Articles

USA v. Moss Limits Regulatory Jurisdiction on the OCS

Grady S. Hurley

The U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) has primary regulatory jurisdiction over OCS oil and gas operations. Following the Deepwater Horizon incident in 2011, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) was created to issue leases and the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) established to promote safety, protect the environment, and conserve national resources.

Cross-Border Listings of Swiss Companies

Jacques Iffland and Ariel Ben Hattar

The law of unintended consequences.

Piercing Limitation of Liability in the Admiralty and Maritime Context

Ethan Price-Livingston & David Y. Loh

One of the hallmarks of American admiralty and maritime law is the Limitation of Liability Act, which has been in existence since 1851 and permits a shipowner to limit its liability to the value of the vessel after the casualty.

Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California, San Francisco

Clifford J. Zatz and Josh Thomas Foust

The decision “may make it impossible to bring certain mass actions at all.”

Q&A with Andrew Smulian of Akerman

Best Lawyers

A Q&A with Advisory Board member Andrew Smulian at Akerman.

The Parade of Horribles

Amy Gunn

Lawsuits about a blood-thinning drug that prevents platelets from clumping together now prevents plaintiffs from joining together to bring state law claims against a corporation when not every plaintiff was harmed in that state.

Defending against Claims of Bad Faith Failure to Settle

Sharon D. Stuart

Recent lessons from the Eleventh Circuit.

Discretion under Fire

Charles F. Seemann III

ERISA plan fiduciaries face new challenges to their decision-making.

sponsored content

Could the Feds Make a Felony Case out of a Lost Lunch Receipt?

Jesse Gessin

“If this is the law, nobody is safe.”

Supreme Court of New Jersey Affirms Rules as to Priority of Discretionary Advance Mortgages

Riker Danzig Scherer Hyland & Perretti

When Purchasing Property, Take Note Of What You See

Robert M. Steeg

A recent case in the Louisiana Court of Appeal highlights an area of law anyone in real estate needs to know.

Limited I-140 Standing for Beneficiaries Recognized by Agency

Adam Rosen

The adoption by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services of Matter of V-S-G- Inc., Adopted Decision 2017-06 (AAO Nov. 11, 2017), finally positions foreign workers with pending Form I-485 applications and green card applicants to realize the full potential of the law.

Supreme Court further Restricts Where Plaintiffs Can Sue in Mass Torts

Gregory Bubalo and Katherine A. Dunnington

Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California will significantly impact the plaintiffs’ choices of forums for the filing of mass torts actions.

sponsored content

Families of Las Vegas Shooting Victims May Struggle With Inevitable Wrongful Death Lawsuits

Richard Morse

It is easy to buy guns and hard to hold anyone other than the user accountable.

The Impact of Duran on the Certification Process in Wage and Hour Class Actions

Tim Freudenberger and Nancy Lubrano

In May 2014, class action defense attorney Tim Freudenberger from Carothers DiSante & Freudenberger LLP, obtained a very favorable decision from the California Supreme Court in Duran v. U.S. Bank Nat. Assn., 59 Cal. 4th 1 (2014).

High Court Reinforces Discrimination Is About More Than Money

Brian J. MacDonough

A new case in Massachusetts clarifies something important about the standards to be met in workplace harassment cases.

Will the Bristol-Myers Decision of Personal Jurisdiction Further Consolidate Litigation in MDLs?

Jeffrey Travers and Michael J. Miller

We were able to obtain a verdict for Mr. Cooper within a year of opting for the state courts.

Divide and Conquer: Plaintiffs Need a Single Forum that Accommodates the Realities of Contemporary Economic Activity

David A. Mazie and David M. Estes

The growth of mass tort litigation tracks with industries’ shift to mass marketing and distribution of pharmaceutical and consumer products on a national scale.

sponsored content

Supreme Court Slams Door on Out-of-State Plaintiffs’ Suits

Dona Szak

In Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California, multiple plaintiffs sued Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. (BMS) in a California state court to recover damages allegedly caused by their use of BMS’ anti-clotting drug, Plavix.

Section 7 v. Title VII = Heavyweight Match

Ann Holden Kendell

In Cooper Tire & Rubber Company v. NLRB (Case 08–CA–087155), a bargaining unit employee yelled racist statements to African-American replacement workers while he was on a picket line.

Recent Case Law on Cross-Border Reorganizations

Marie-Hélène Raffin

The Euro Park decision is bound to facilitate the application of the French favorable tax regime to cross border mergers and spin-offs.

Justice Gorsuch’s Strange Detour in Alien Tort Statute Case

Motley Rice

Justice Neil Gorsuch wasn’t a member of the U.S. Supreme Court back in 2004, when the justices ruled in Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain (124 S.Ct. 2739) that in certain limited circumstances, foreign nationals can use a 1789 law, the Alien Tort Statute, to sue in U.S. courts for violations of the law of nations.

Driven, Obsessed, and Loving Every Minute

Arguedas, Cassman, Headley & Goldman

Cris Arguedas on defending the accused.

Recent Case Law Defining ‘Bodily Injury’ under the Montreal Convention

Christopher B. Kende

In a nutshell, the Convention makes an airline strictly liable for bodily injury or death of a passenger caused by an “accident” occurring while embarking, on board the aircraft, or disembarking.

Where Does Roe Go From Here?

Amanda Martinsek

Georgia, Alabama, Missouri, and Ohio are among the states fighting to overturn legal abortion in America. With a favorable bench, how might Roe v. Wade look in the future?

Send, Serve, or Both

Holly M. Polglase and Matthew E. Bown

The Supreme Court decides the meaning of Article 10(A) of the Hague Service Convention.

Victory for The Slants and Redskins

Carol Steinour Young and Emily Hart

On June 19, 2017, the United States Supreme Court settled the issue of whether an offensive name—in this case, an Asian-American rock band called “The Slants”—can properly be registered as a trademark.