The Supreme Court of the United States unanimously upheld an arbitrator’s decision to allow class-wide arbitration.
Some courts hold that almost by definition the privilege cannot protect intra-corporate communications directed to both a lawyer and a nonlawyer, because they are not primarily legal in nature.
Last week, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court issued two long-awaited decisions concerning the enforceability of class action waivers in arbitration agreements.
The Supreme Court has appeared to substantially limit consumers' ability to bring class actions in court against defendants with which they have an arbitration agreement, as well as to bring class arbitrations when the arbitration agreement does not expressly provide for class claims.
The Supreme Court has recently upheld an arbitrator’s decision that a contractual clause requiring that "all" disputes be submitted to arbitration authorizes classwide arbitration.
Plaintiffs frequently sue businesses in class actions for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, 47 U.S.C. § 227.
The U.S. Supreme Court has recently held in "Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis, Inc." that so-called "reverse payment" settlement agreements should be analyzed under a rule-of-reason analysis under which the court assesses any anti-competitive effects of such agreements.
The United States Supreme Court recently held that an arbitrator’s decision to authorize class arbitration will not be disturbed under Section 10(a)(4) of the Federal Arbitration Act when that decision is grounded in the arbitrator’s interpretation of the agreement.
As we have blogged before, the food and beverage industry is facing a tidal wave of class action litigation alleging false advertising under state consumer protection laws.
Under the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act (i.e., the Hatch-Waxman Act), a generic-drug manufacturer may obtain FDA approval to market and sell a generic version of a patent-protected drug by certifying that the patent is invalid or unenforceable.
Aviation and Transportation Security Act — Qualified Immunity For Voluntary ATSA Reporting; Fair Housing Act—Disparate-Impact Claims; Appealability—Finality of Decision Leaving Request for Contractual Attorney’s Fees Unresolved
The Delaware Supreme Court recently entered an Order amending Rule 14(b)(vi)B.(2) regarding briefs.
Governor Jack Markell recently signed into law House Bill 40 This Bill extends the time period for the Automatic Residental Mortgage Foreclosure Mediation Program and the Office of Foreclosure Prevention.
In a March post on this blog, my colleague John Aromando previewed the then up-coming oral argument before the Supreme Court in Oxford Health Plans LLC v. Sutter, discussing the possible implications of that case on class-wide arbitration and, in particular, the proper reading of the Supreme Court’s earlier decision in Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. AnimalFeeds International Corp.
The PA Supreme Court changed its internal operating procedures to delete standards for the Court to follow as to when to grant Petitions for Allowance of Appeal.
On June 13, 2013 the Supreme Court issued three decisions,
described below, of interest to the business community
In Guidotti v. Legal Helpers Debt Resolution, LLC, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reconciled a split on which standards apply to motions to compel arbitration.
The International Bar Association recently approved and released the IBA Guidelines on Party Representation in International Arbitration.
The Supreme Court recently had occasion to apply the doctrine in the case of Already, LLC v. Nike, Inc., 133 S.Ct. 721.
The federal work product rule and its state parallel rules protect only documents "prepared in anticipation of litigation or trial by or for another party or its representative[s]." Fed. R. Civ. 26(b)(3)(A)