Articles by :


Third Circuit Tackles Third-Party Funding Issues in In Re: National Football League Players’ Concussion Injury Litigation

Share

Third-party litigation funding has received increased scrutiny over the past several years, particularly in the context of mass torts, class actions, and multidistrict litigation. Most of this scrutiny has focused on pre-litigation or pre-resolution commercial loans to fund the litigation, and particularly whether parties are required to disclose such funding during the course of the litigation.

For example, in February 2019, several U.S. senators reintroduced S.471, the Litigation Funding Transparency Act of 2019, which would require plaintiffs to disclose third-party litigation funding for class actions and multidistrict litigation. This came on the heels of a January 2019 letter from more than 25 major U.S. companies to the Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure requesting an amendment to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1)(A) “to require in civil actions the disclosure of agreements giving a non-party or non-counsel the contingent right to receive compensation from proceeds of the litigation.”

Continue reading “Third Circuit Tackles Third-Party Funding Issues in In Re: National Football League Players’ Concussion Injury Litigation“

Beware of the “Influencer”

Share

The proliferation of social media has transformed the world in many ways including how people communicate, becoming a preferred vehicle for political discourse and an important source of information in litigation.  It has also changed the way companies market their products.  Gifting “influencers” with products to promote in their posts has proven to be a successful marketing strategy for increasing brand awareness.  However, companies may be held accountable for claims made by influencers about their products.

Continue reading “Beware of the “Influencer””

Labeling Preemption Questions are for the Court, not the Jury, Holds U.S. Supreme Court in Fosamax Decision That Clarifies the “Clear Evidence” Standard

Share

A judge, and not the jury, is the better-positioned and appropriate decisionmaker to determine whether a failure-to-warn claim is federally preempted, the U.S. Supreme Court held today.

The Court also clarified the “clear evidence” standard governing an impossibility preemption defense to failure-to-warn claims.

Continue reading “Labeling Preemption Questions are for the Court, not the Jury, Holds U.S. Supreme Court in Fosamax Decision That Clarifies the “Clear Evidence” Standard”

FDA’s Final Guidance on “Least Burdensome” Principles for Medical Devices

Share

The U.S. Food & Drug Administration’s (FDA’s) Least Burdensome Provisions: Concept and Principles: Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff, February 5, 2019, states that “medical device regulation should be least burdensome across the total product life cycle.” This means that manufacturers are expected to provide “the minimum amount of information necessary to adequately address a relevant regulatory question or issue through the most efficient manner at the right time.” The FDA observed that this approach should “ensure that patients have access to high-quality, safe and effective medical devices.”

Continue reading “FDA’s Final Guidance on “Least Burdensome” Principles for Medical Devices”

Texas Senate Passes Bill Regulating Attorney Advertising Regarding Prescription Medication and Medical Device Litigation

Share

On April 11, 2019, the Texas Senate passed by a vote of 20-10 bipartisan Senate Bill 1189 regulating attorney advertising relating to prescription medication and medical device litigation.

The bill prohibits certain advertisements for legal services that use the phrases “medical alert,” “drug alert,” “public service announcement,” or other language to suggest that “the advertisement is offering professional, medical, or government agency advice about medications or medical devices rather than legal services.”

Continue reading “Texas Senate Passes Bill Regulating Attorney Advertising Regarding Prescription Medication and Medical Device Litigation”

Drafting 502(d) Orders to Provide Maximum Non-Waiver Protection

Share

Counsel drafting an order under Federal Rule of Evidence 502(d) or an agreement under Rule 502(e) generally expect to supplant the uncertainty of the privilege waiver analysis under Rule 502(b) and assure near-absolute protection against inadvertent waiver. But two recent decisions frustrate such expectations and offer lessons on how to better assure strong anti-waiver protection. Absolute Activist Value Master Fund Ltd. v. Devine, 262 F. Supp. 3d 1312 (M.D. Fla. 2017); irth Solutions, LLC v. Windstream Communications, LLC, 2018 WL 575911 (S.D. Ohio 2018) (appeal pending).

Continue reading “Drafting 502(d) Orders to Provide Maximum Non-Waiver Protection”