Newsletters

02.17.17

Case Not Moot Even After Rule 67 Funds Deposited

Is a Telephone Consumer Protection Act class action moot where a defendant actually deposits sufficient funds with the court to satisfy a plaintiff’s claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 67?


02.13.17

When Regulatory Failings Turn Criminal: Car Edition Redux

To paraphrase the famous quote from the film “All About Eve”: Fasten your seatbelts, it’s going to be a bumpy car ride. In the first part of January 2017, the automotive industry saw two high profile resolutions—with combined criminal and civil penalties exceeding $5 ...


02.10.17

President Taps New Heads for Federal Employment Agencies

President Donald J. Trump appointed new leaders for the federal employment agencies during his busy first few days in office, tapping Victoria A. Lipnic as Acting Chair of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and Philip A. Miscimarra to lead the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).


01.27.17

Supreme Court to Decide Validity of Class Action Waivers

After multiple petitions, and amidst a broadening split of the federal appellate courts, the U.S. Supreme Court earlier this month to decide whether class action waivers in arbitration agreements in the employment context violate the National Labor Relations Act.


01.26.17

SPECIAL FOCUS: FCC Under Pai: Implications for the TCPA

On January 23, 2017, President Trump appointed Commissioner Ajit Pai to serve as the next chairman of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).


01.23.17

Top Five Healthcare Antitrust Trends to Watch in 2017

Antitrust enforcement and litigation had a big year in 2016. In this article, we look back at the most significant cases for the healthcare industry over the last year to identify key trends to watch for in 2017.


01.18.17

California TCPA Defendant Gets Mixed Rulings

A California federal court judge issued a pair of rulings resulting in a split decision for Telephone Consumer Protection Act defendant Dick's Sporting Goods.


01.18.17

California: On-Duty, On-Call Rest Periods Violate State Law

Ruling in a closely watched case, the California Supreme Court declared that on-duty and on-call rest periods violate state law.


12.22.16

Insider Trading: Supreme Court Affirms Salman

On December 6, 2016 the Supreme Court decided Salman v. U.S., in which it upheld the petitioner’s insider trading conviction.


12.20.16

Defendant’s Attempt to Moot TCPA Suit Fails (Again)

A Telephone Consumer Protection Act defendant was unsuccessful in persuading a Massachusetts federal court judge to dismiss a putative class action under the statute despite offering the plaintiff $46,500 and promising to refrain from future violations.