Insights Search

Trademarks serve as the cornerstone of brand identity, distinguishing the goods and services of one enterprise from those of another.

Privilege logging is one of the most time-consuming, expensive, and contentious components of discovery. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(5)(A), which governs the withholding of privileged material, provides little concrete guidance to alleviate these burdens. But the broad language of the rule also offers litigants significant flexibility to incorporate new technology, most notably automation and artificial intelligence, into their privilege logging practices. These tools meaningfully increase efficiency and cost savings for many litigants and should be more widely adopted as the technology progresses.

Following months of delays and intense debate in Congress, President Biden signed H.R. 815 into law on April 24, 2024, which made headlines for funding $95 billion in military aid to Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan, along with mandating the divestment of social media app TikTok.

For years, email has been the dominant form of business communication. The average office worker sends approximately 9,000 to 15,000 emails per year. Multiply 15,000 emails across multiple personnel and multiple years, and that leads to an enormous amount of email flowing into review for a lawsuit or investigation. And, as we all know, many of those emails are replies and forwards containing repetitive information that appear multiple times in our inboxes. Reviewing each individual email in those email chains or “threads” can be time-consuming and costly. Email threading can help solve this problem.

Companies in the midst of government investigations and enforcement actions often must contend with follow-on civil litigation stemming from the same issues. Indeed, due to differing standards of proof, companies that are able to successfully ward off government enforcement actions may still find themselves mired in civil litigation that comes with even more significant discovery and exposure to financial liability.

On April 23, 2024, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) voted 3-2, on party lines, to finalize its rule prohibiting businesses from entering into or enforcing non-compete clauses in nearly all agreements with workers.

While much attention is given to compliance with applicable laws, such as the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977, many companies working on projects sponsored by Multi-Lateral Development Banks overlook that they have subjected themselves to an entirely separate regime of anti-fraud and anti-corruption regulations with serious consequences for non-compliance.

Amidst the government’s ongoing efforts to combat insider trading, a recent dismissal of criminal charges for insider trading gives new insight into this constantly evolving area of law.

On April 12, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held that, in the absence of an otherwise misleading statement, a failure to disclose information required by Item 303 of Regulation S-K (“Item 303”[i]) does not support a private action under Section 10(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 (“Section 10(b)”).

The Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) caught the attention of the corporate and investment world in August 2021 when it filed an insider trading action against biopharmaceutical company employee Matthew Panuwat based on a “shadow trading” theory.

Antitrust partner Steve Medlock will serve as Session Chair and Moderator of the panel “NIL After Alston: Wild West?” at this year’s American Bar Association 73rd Antitrust Spring Meeting in Washington DC.

A recent privilege dispute in E.D.N.Y. case La Liberte v. Reid provides a prime opportunity to review the law and practical aspects surrounding attorney-client privilege, work product protection, and the crime-fraud exception to privileged communications.