Expert Analysis

The U.S. Supreme Court's decision Tuesday to dismiss Emulex v. Varjabedian leaves behind a great deal of confusion in the federal securities laws governing corporate mergers and acquisitions, and there are at least three important consequences, says Lyle Roberts of Shearman & Sterling.

The continued sprawl of False Claims Act cases warrants scrutiny of one of the statute's less understood characteristics — one set of facts can lead to concurrent or successive proceedings initiated by a combination of criminal, civil or administrative authorities, as well as private plaintiffs, say attorneys at DLA Piper.

Recent guidance from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission may help issuers avoid having their future initial coin offerings categorized as unregistered securities offerings. But for past ICOs, issuers must rely on the SEC's remediation process, and should consider two key questions before proceeding, says Kayvan Sadeghi of Schiff Hardin.

The Conference of State Bank Supervisors' recently announced suggestions to harmonize state law frameworks for nonbank fintech companies could be particularly beneficial to cryptocurrency companies, for whom the applicable regulatory landscape is especially uncertain, say attorneys at Cleary Gottlieb.

Against the backdrop of the Illinois Supreme Court's Biometric Information Privacy Act opinion in Rosenbach v. Six Flags, an Illinois appellate court's recent decision in Liu v. Four Seasons reinforces that companies must carefully design and implement stringent BIPA policies to protect against class actions and related liability, say attorneys with Eversheds Sutherland.

The 13th hearing in the Federal Trade Commission’s series on competition in the 21st century focused on evaluating the FTC’s merger retrospective program. Jon B. Jacobs and Jeremy Keeney of Perkins Coie discuss some of the recurring themes, innovative concepts and key takeaways.

Parties negotiating merger and acquisition agreements should note a series of recent decisions that highlight how Delaware courts interpret "best efforts” and similar industry terms of art, says Shayne Clinton of Bass Berry.

The U.S. Department of Justice's about-face on Affordable Care Act constitutionality may discourage potential whistleblowers from coming forward unless the DOJ clarifies its plans to enforce the False Claims Act, says Cleveland Lawrence III of Mehri & Skalet.

U.S. District Judge Colm Connolly's new form scheduling order does not explain what a patentee must show to obtain discovery on unaccused products such that they might add accused instrumentalities to the case. But fortunately, that question has been considered in a number of cases in the District of Delaware, says Jeff Castellano of Shaw Keller.

In response to the recent measles outbreak, more cities and states are expected to follow New York City's lead with orders for mandatory measles vaccinations, and challenges to those orders are unlikely to be successful, say Michael Hoernlein and Rebecca Gauthier of Alston & Bird.

During the past 15 years, three widely read articles bolstered by starstruck media have promulgated the incorrect perception — sorely in need of revision — that the U.S. Supreme Court bar is limited to a handful of elite lawyers, says Lawrence Ebner of Capital Appellate Advocacy.

A recent Delaware Court of Chancery decision, Personal Touch v. Glaubach, may prompt corporate leadership to be more attentive to the legal risks associated with the usurpation of corporate opportunity, especially in the health care sector, says Michael Peregrine of McDermott.

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission recently settled with the founder of Jumio for his misstatement of financial results to inflate the value of his company shares. This case is an example of what may be in store if an economic downturn hits the current stable of unicorns, say Joshua Newville and Brian Hooven at Proskauer.

Mondelez's suit against Zurich over coverage for the NotPetya ransomware attack is the first time a war exclusion has been litigated in the cyber insurance context, and it could have a significant impact on property and cyber policies, say Daniel Garrie and Peter Rosen of JAMS.

Some questions during U.S. Supreme oral arguments in Kisor v. Wilkie suggested a willingness to overturn Auer deference. If this leads to the scuttling of Chevron deference, rapidly evolving areas of law like labor and employment could benefit from a return to courts addressing ambiguities in federal statutes, says Michael Abcarian of Fisher Phillips.

The U.S. Supreme Court's 2016 decision in Samsung v. Apple produced considerable consternation because it did not set a standard for calculating a design patent infringer’s profits to determine a patentee’s compensation. But the lower courts' response suggests any fear of unreasonable awards was premature, say Sterne Kessler attorney Tracy-Gene Durkin and consultant Gary Griswold.

Following the introduction of a bill that would significantly expand California's decade-old framework for regulating chemicals in consumer products, businesses should assess their product inventory for chemicals that may soon be regulated, and monitor the state's regulatory process, say attorneys at Arnold & Porter.

As demonstrated by a Pennsylvania federal court's recent decision in Mielo v. Steak 'n Shake, it soon may no longer be possible to bring Americans with Disabilities Act claims against a company for failure to enact a policy that requires finding and removing potential physical barriers, say attorneys at Squire Patton Boggs.

When changes in clean energy regulations lead to investor disputes, domestic companies may be limited to challenging regulatory changes in local courts, but investors from abroad can often seek remedies under international law, say attorneys at WilmerHale.