Expert Analysis

• In Bribery Case, High Court's Past Is Probably Prologue

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court will soon hear oral arguments in Snyder v. U.S. on the issue of whether federal law criminalizes gratuities that are not tied to an explicit quid pro quo, and precedent strongly indicates the court will limit an expansive reading of the bribery statute, say attorneys Sami Azhari and Don Davidson.

• Stay Interviews Are Key To Retaining Legal Talent

  

  Even as the economy shifts and layoffs continue, law firms still want to retain their top attorneys, and so-called stay interviews — informal conversations with employees to identify potential issues before they lead to turnover — can be a crucial tool for improving retention and morale, say Tina Cohen Nicol and Kate Reder Sheikh at Major Lindsey.

• Direct Claims Ruling May Alter Gov't Ties To Software Firms

  

  A recent Federal Circuit decision allowing a software developer to pursue legal action under the Contract Disputes Act could change the government's relationship with commercial software providers by permitting direct claims, even in third-party purchase situations, say Dan Ramish and Zach Prince at Haynes Boone.

• Payment Provision Lessons From NJ Construction Ruling

  

  A New Jersey appellate court's decision in Bil-Jim v. Wyncrest, holding that an American Institute of Architects contract was not an installment contract, highlights both the complexities of statute of limitations calculations and the significant consequences that can arise from minor differences in contract language, say Mitchell Taraschi and Zac Brower at Connell Foley.

• The Fed. Circ. In February: A Reminder On Procedure Rule 28

  

  Because the Federal Circuit does not often issue a sua sponte precedential order emphasizing an important rule of practice, it is useful to look at how the court applied the restrictions of appellate procedure Rule 28 in Promptu v. Comcast last month, and in cases that preceded it, say Jeremiah Helm and Sean Murray at Knobbe Martens.

• SC Ruling Reinforces All Sums Coverage Trend

  

  A South Carolina state court's recent ruling in Covil v. Pennsylvania National is the latest in a series of decisions, dating back to the 2016 New York Court of Appeals ruling in Viking Pump, that reject insurers' pro rata allocation argument, further supporting that all sums coverage is required whenever a loss could be covered under a policy in any other year, say Raymond Mascia and Thomas Dupont at Anderson Kill.

• A Defense Strategy For Addressing Copyright Fee-Shifting

  

  Permissive fee-shifting under Section 505 of the Copyright Act poses unique challenges for copyright defendants, carrying an outsize impact on the economic incentive structure in copyright litigation, but relying on a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure may offer a potential solution by allowing defendants to recover attorney fees, say Hugh Marbury and Molly Shaffer at Cozen O'Connor.

• Opinion

  Neb. Justices Should Weigh IRC Terms In Dividend Tax Case

  

  Nebraska’s highest court, which will hear oral arguments in Precision CastParts v. Department of Revenue on April 1, should recognize that the Internal Revenue Code provides key clues to defining “dividends received or deemed to be received,” and therefore limits Nebraska’s tax on foreign-sourced corporate income, says Joseph Schmidt at Ryan.

• Contract Disputes Recap: Facts Differ But Same Rules Apply

  

  Zachary Jacobson and Sarah Barney at Seyfarth examine two decisions illustrating that reliance on a technicality may not save an otherwise untimely appeal, and that enforcement of commercial terms and conditions under a federal supply schedule contract may be possible.

• Del. Supreme Court Insurance Ruling Aids In Defining 'Claim'

  

  The recent Delaware Supreme Court decision in Zurich v. Syngenta, finding that a presuit letter did not constitute a claim for insurance purposes, sets out a three-factor test to help policyholders distinguish when a demand rises to the level of a claim, says Lara Langeneckert at Barnes & Thornburg.

• Series

  Spray Painting Makes Me A Better Lawyer

  

  My experiences as an abstract spray paint artist have made me a better litigator, demonstrating — in more ways than one — how fluidity and flexibility are necessary parts of a successful legal practice, says Erick Sandlin at Bracewell.

• Judge-Shopping Policy Revisal May Make Issue Worse

  

  The Judicial Conference at its March meeting unveiled a revised policy with the stated goal of limiting litigants’ ability to judge-shop in patent cases, but the policy may actually exacerbate the problem by tying the issue to judge-shopping in polarizing political cases, making reform more difficult, say Robert Niemeier and William Milliken at Sterne Kessler.

• 2nd Circ. Baby Food Ruling Disregards FDA's Expertise

  

  The Second Circuit's recent decision in White v. Beech-Nut Nutrition, refusing to defer litigation over heavy metals in baby food until the U.S. Food and Drug Administration weighs in on the issue, provides no indication that courts will resolve the issue with greater efficiency than the FDA, say attorneys at Phillips Lytle.

• Where 9th Circ. Lowe's Ruling Leaves PAGA Jurisprudence

  

  Leah Kennedy and Carolyn Wheeler at Katz Banks discuss the legal landscape and controlling precedent around the Private Attorneys General Act that led to the Ninth Circuit's Johnson v. Lowe's decision last month on individual PAGA wage claims, and explore the open questions that it leaves.

• Opinion

  5th Circ. NFL Disability Ruling Turns ERISA On Its Head

  

  The Fifth Circuit's March 15 ruling in Cloud v. NFL Player Retirement Plan upheld the plan's finding that an NFL player was not entitled to reclassification because he couldn't show changed circumstances, which is contrary to the goal of accurate Employee Retirement Income Security Act claims processing, says Mark DeBofsky at DeBofsky Law.