blogged about the D.C. Circuit's ruling in Noel Canning v. NLRB (pdf) that
President Obama's three 2012 recess appointments to the
National Labor Relations Board are unconstitutional. The
consequence of that decision was to invalidate the NLRB decision
against Noel Canning for lack of a quorum of NLRB members. The
decision also cast a dark cloud over many other NLRB decisions, as
well as the recess appointment of Consumer Financial Protection
Bureau head Richard Cordray.
As we mentioned,
the Solicitor General already filed a
petition for certiorari in Noel Canning. The National
Chamber Litigation Center has just filed a brief in
response—the first time that Chamber lawyers have ever
directly represented a member company before the Supreme
The Chamber's brief (pdf) agrees that the D.C.
Circuit's decision is worthy of Supreme Court review, and
explains why the D.C. Circuit's decision should be upheld.
Under the current schedule, the Supreme Court will consider the
petition during the June 20, 2013 conference and possibly act on it
in the orders list on June 24. If the Solicitor General waives the
right to file a reply brief, however, the petition could be
resolved a week earlier, on June 17.
In related news, in another case, the Third Circuit agreed with
the D.C. Circuit's conclusion that the Constitution permits
recess appointments only during "intersession
breaks"—that is, during periods between sessions of the
Senate. As with the 2012 recess appointments at issue in Noel
Canning, the 2010 recess appointment at issue in the Third
Circuit case, NLRB v. New Vista Nursing &
Rehabilitation (pdf), was made during a break in the
middle of a session. Judge Smith wrote the decision, which Judge
Van Antwerpen joined. Judge Greenaway dissented. Presumably, the
Solicitor General will file a petition for certiorari in New
Vista asking that the case be held pending the outcome of
Mayer Brown is a global legal services provider
comprising legal practices that are separate entities (the
"Mayer Brown Practices"). The Mayer Brown Practices are:
Mayer Brown LLP and Mayer Brown Europe – Brussels LLP, both
limited liability partnerships established in Illinois USA; Mayer
Brown International LLP, a limited liability partnership
incorporated in England and Wales (authorized and regulated by the
Solicitors Regulation Authority and registered in England and Wales
number OC 303359); Mayer Brown, a SELAS established in France;
Mayer Brown JSM, a Hong Kong partnership and its associated
entities in Asia; and Tauil & Chequer Advogados, a Brazilian
law partnership with which Mayer Brown is associated. "Mayer
Brown" and the Mayer Brown logo are the trademarks of the
Mayer Brown Practices in their respective
Mayer Brown article provides information and comments on legal
issues and developments of interest. The foregoing is not a
comprehensive treatment of the subject matter covered and is not
intended to provide legal advice. Readers should seek specific
legal advice before taking any action with respect to the matters
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
When giving a testimony, everything a witness says will be recorded and taken down word-for-word. This article discusses the importance of advising a witness on how to prepare for this and gives basic steps to follow to avoid creating problems on the record.
A large corporation has been sued on behalf of a putative nationwide class. As discovery begins, in-house counsel is concerned about the cost and time involved in collecting, reviewing and producing the relevant emails, shared documents and other electronically stored information (ESI) throughout departments and across offices.
On November 14, 2013, Judge William G. Young of the District of Massachusetts entered an order certifying a class of individual consumers and other payors who alleged that anti-competitive practices of the defendant pharmaceutical companies resulted in overcharges for the drug Nexium.
In the latest chapter of the long-running dispute between the Astro Group and the Lippo Group, the Singapore Court of Appeal has handed down its judgment relating to challenges brought by the Lippo Group against five Singapore arbitration awards (PT First Media TBK v Astro Nusantara International BV & others  SGCA 57).
In LifeScan Scotland, Ltd. V. Shasta Technologies, LLC, the Federal Circuit found that LifeScan’s distribution of its One-Touch Ultra glucose meters exhausted its patent rights such that it could not prevent Shasta from selling disposable test strips for use in the meters.