MVA Litigation

After months of discussion and drafting, H.R.7011, the Pandemic Risk Insurance Act of 2020 (PRIA) was introduced by Representative Carolyn Maloney and twenty co-sponsors on May 26, 2020. If passed as currently drafted, the Act would mandate that insurance companies offering business interruption insurance policies must cover losses incurred due to pandemics and it would establish a Pandemic Risk Reinsurance Program (PRRP) within the Department of the Treasury under which private insurance companies and the federal government would share the responsibility to pay claims for ...

U.S. businesses have the good fortune to be on the receiving end of a favorable U.S. Senate vote nullifying the hotly-contested Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) rule banning class action waivers in certain consumer finance arbitration agreements. The rule, issued by the agency in July 2017, took several years to finalize and was criticized for being based on a flawed data, the result of the agency overreaching, and more beneficial to class action plaintiffs’ attorneys than the consumers it was supposed to protect. Our previous posts discuss in detail ...

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) recently announced the release of its final rule prohibiting the use of class action waivers in certain consumer finance arbitration agreements. The rule has been several years in the making, and has been widely followed and hotly contested. The final rule was announced on July 10, 2017 and published in the Federal Register on July 19, 2017. Accordingly, it is set to take effect on September 18, 2017 (60 days following publication) and to apply to contracts entered into on or after March 19, 2018 (180 days after the effective date ...

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) recently announced the release of its final rule that prohibits the use of class action waivers in certain consumer finance arbitration agreements. This rule banning class waivers has been several years in the making, and has been widely followed and hotly contested. The CFPB reports that it received more than 110,000 comments on its proposed rule during the comment period, which raised concerns regarding “whether the effects of arbitration agreements are salient to consumers, whether arbitration has proved to be a fair and ...

As class action litigation has continued to proliferate, we have seen efforts to rein in the perceived abuses of the system on multiple fronts. Over a decade ago, Congress passed the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA) to provide an avenue for defendants to remove class actions filed in state courts to the more neutral ground of the federal court system. In the last several years, the courts have been called on repeatedly to define the contours of CAFA and the Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on Civil Rules (Advisory Committee) initiated proposed amendments to Federal Rule of ...

On May 11, 2016, President Obama signed S. 1890 – The Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) into law, the final step in creating the first federal civil cause of action against those who misappropriate a company’s trade secrets. In signing the Act, President Obama spoke of American innovation and the threat that trade secret theft, particularly in Asian markets, poses to American jobs, markets, and leadership. Our previous post, See You in Federal Court: Congress Creates Federal Civil Action for Trade Secret Misappropriation, provides details regarding key components of the Act ...

Congressional efforts to create a federal remedy to protect company trade secrets have been underway for several years. Last week, S. 1890 - Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016, which would amend the Economic Espionage Act of 1996 to create federal civil jurisdiction over the theft of trade secrets, was sent by Congress to the President for consideration. The Bill was introduced last year and was passed by an overwhelming majority of both the Senate and House in April 2016: by Senate vote (87-0) on April 4 and by House vote (410-2), without changes, on April 27. The Bill was presented to the ...

Our goal is to serve as a cutting-edge resource for companies operating in an increasingly globalized and regulated business environment. Moore & Van Allen’s MLB Litigation Brief is a complement to our Litigation Blog’s in-depth individual treatment of critical issues emerging in federal, North Carolina state, and international litigation, as well as in arbitration, regulatory enforcement, and related business practices. MLB Litigation Brief hits the highlights of recent developments, streamlining access to critical information for our readers. Subscribe to the MVA ...

Class actions consume considerable company resources and can pose significant risk of exposure in the $ millions or $ billions. Therefore, it is critical for companies to prepare themselves – to know the trends in class action litigation and the tools available to minimize their exposure to class action liability. Over the last several weeks, the Supreme Court has heard arguments in three cases that have potential to further define the landscape of class action litigation: Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez (No. 14-857), Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins (No. 13-1339), and Tyson Foods, Inc. v ...

Class actions consume considerable company resources and can pose significant risk of exposure in the $ millions or $ billions. Therefore, it is critical for companies to prepare themselves – to know the trends in class action litigation and the tools available to minimize their exposure to class action liability. Over the last several weeks, the Supreme Court has heard arguments in three cases that have potential to further define the landscape of class action litigation: Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez (No. 14-857), Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins (No. 13-1339), and Tyson Foods, Inc. v ...

Class actions consume considerable company resources and can pose significant risk of exposure in the $ millions or $ billions. Therefore, it is critical for companies to prepare themselves – to know the trends in class action litigation and the tools available to minimize their exposure to class action liability. Over the last several weeks, the Supreme Court has heard arguments in three cases that have potential to further define the landscape of class action litigation: Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez (No. 14-857), Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins (No. 13-1339), and Tyson Foods, Inc. v ...

Circumscribing an individual’s power to subject companies to class and collective actions has been on the forefront of corporate litigation for several years, particularly in light of the growing trend of class action filings.  An increasingly common scenario facing corporate defendants is the “no-injury class” in which many members of a certified class actually sustained no injury or damages, resulting in a much larger class to which damages might be awarded.  This issue has arisen in a variety of contexts, including product liability class actions like the Whirlpool moldy ...

Class action lawsuits have become a commonplace fixture in the American judicial landscape and carry the force to extract billions of dollars from defendants, many of whom settle once a class is certified due to the costs and risks of litigation, regardless of the merits of the plaintiff’s case.  Ten years ago, Congress tackled several perceived abuses of the class action mechanism by passing the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (“CAFA”), which allows defendants to remove certain class actions filed in state court to the more neutral ground of the federal system.  In February ...

Patent litigation reform has been on the U.S. House Judiciary Committee agenda, with the recent reintroduction of legislation seeking to address patent litigation abuses and a hearing examining recent U.S. Supreme Court cases that have imposed some reforms that may, or may not, curtail the need for further legislative efforts.  In February, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee Rep. Rob Goodlatte reintroduced the bi-partisan Innovation Act, H.R. 9, which is the same in substance as the previous Innovation Act, H.R. 3309 that passed the House in December 2013, but ultimately ...

On September 17, 2014, the House Judiciary Committee approved the bi-partisan federal Trade Secrets Protection Act of 2014, H.R. 5233, which we previously wrote about when introduced in July, 2014 by North Carolina Representative George Holding.  H.R. 5233 seeks to amend the Economic Espionage Act of 1996 to create a federal civil remedy for trade secret misappropriation.  Regarding the importance of the Act, Rep. Holding and other supporters noted that “[a]s of 2009, the value of trade secrets owned by U.S. companies was estimated to be nearly $5 trillion.  While current federal ...

The House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property and the Internet recently held hearings targeted at further exploring intellectual property laws and policy.  On July 24, the Subcommittee held another hearing in its series that is examining federal copyright laws, this time focusing on remedies for copyright infringement provided under Chapter 5 of Title 17.  This was a follow-up to a previous hearing that focused on the notice and take down provisions of Section 512.  Issues addressed in the July 24 hearing include the creation of a small claims ...

On July 29, 2014, North Carolina Congressman George Holding introduced the Trade Secrets Protection Act of 2014, H.R. 5233, which seeks to create a private federal remedy for victims of trade secret theft.  Representative Holding introduced the bill with five co-sponsors from both sides of the aisle, affirming in his statement the importance of protecting businesses from the damage caused by the loss of trade secrets:

American businesses face relentless cyber security threats every day, costing our economy billions of dollars and tens of thousands of jobs each year.  As a way to help ...

The House Energy & Commerce Committee’s Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade considered and approved the Targeting Rogue and Opaque Letters Act of 2014 (“TROL Act”) with a 13-6 vote.  The purpose of the TROL Act is to establish that certain bad faith communications made in connection with the assertion of a United States patent are considered unfair or deceptive acts or practices under section 5(a)(1) of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 45(a)(1)).  The Act was passed with minor amendment to the provision that establishes an affirmative defense that ...

HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE HEARING ON DOJ OVERSIGHT: The House Judiciary Committee recently held a hearing regarding oversight of the U.S. Department of Justice during which Attorney General Eric Holder testified.  A webcast of the hearing and testimony can be found here. Posted by Tony Lathrop, Apr. 28 2014

On April 8, 2014, the U.S. House Committee on Energy & Commerce, Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade held a hearing “Trolling for a Solution: Ending Abusive Patent Demand Letters.”  The purpose of the hearing was to discuss ways to balance the need to curb the increasing abuse of patent demand letters by “bad actors” with protecting the legitimate interest that entities with patent holdings have in using demand letters “to engage other companies in lawful and productive discussions around their businesses.”  The hearing background memo explains that the ...

HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE COPYRIGHT HEARING:  On April 2, 2014, the House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet held a hearing “Preservation and Reuse of Copyrighted Works.”  Witness testimony and a webcast of the hearing can be viewed here.  Posted by Tony Lathrop, Apr. 11, 2014.

HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE RECONSIDERS CHAPTER 11 BANKRUPTCY: Last week, the House Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, Commercial and Antitrust Law held its hearing to address Bankruptcy reform - Exploring Chapter 11 Reform: Corporate and Financial Institution Insolvencies; Treatment of Derivatives.  The witness list and testimony are available here.  Posted by Tony Lathrop, Apr. 4, 2014.

            Attorneys practicing under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are very familiar with Rule 11, which requires that they sign all papers submitted to a federal court and subjects them to possible sanctions for filing frivolous, harassing or baseless lawsuits and motions.  The U.S. Congress is currently considering the Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act of 2013 which aims to “amend Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to improve attorney accountability, and for other purposes,” those other purposes being to mandate and increase the sanctions facing attorneys for Rule 11 ...