Pleading Standard for Securities Fraud Complaints
August 28, 2007
In Tellabs v. Makor Issues & Rights Ltd. (June 21, 2007), the U.S. Supreme Court offered clarity on the requirement in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (the 'PSLRA') that plaintiffs in securities fraud actions plead with particularity facts giving rise to a 'strong inference' of scienter. There has been some disagreement on the impact of the ruling.
Streamlined Document Production At Hinshaw & Culbertson
August 27, 2007
Law firms must produce documents ranging in difficulty from simple memos to complex agreements, as well as disclosure documents and briefs. Firms are often under the highest pressure with demands for both accuracy and turnaround. As a result, it is imperative that they produce well-formatted documents quickly and efficiently.
Movers & Shakers
July 31, 2007
News about lawyers and law fims in the product liability field.
Case Notes
July 31, 2007
Highlights of the latest product liability cases from around the country.
Walking the Line: Sharing Work Product with Testifying Witnesses
July 31, 2007
Attorneys have an ethical obligation to represent their clients zealously. Deposition preparation is key to that obligation. Preparing testifying witnesses educates and focuses them on important issues and facts of a case. This aside, the law regarding disclosure of work product provided to testifying witnesses is not well settled, and 'there is considerable room within which thoughtful judges can reach different conclusions.' <i>Intermedics, Inc. v. Ventritex, Inc.</i>, 139 F.R.D. 384, 387 (N.D. Cal. 1991). Zealous representation, therefore, requires counsel to walk a line between witness preparation on one side and work product disclosure on the other. In so doing, counsel must also remain mindful of the line that exists between acceptable witness preparation and impermissible influencing of a witness. <i>State v. Earp</i>, 571 A.2d 1227, 1235 (Md. 1990). One misstep may lead to disclosure of counsel's mental impressions and strategy and, possibly, to serious sanctions.
Designer Liability: A Trap for the Unsuspecting Manufacturer Or Former Manufacturer
July 31, 2007
In order to hold a defendant liable in a product liability case, tort law traditionally has required an injured plaintiff to show that the named defendant manufactured, sold, or distributed the product that allegedly caused the plaintiff's injury. Over the years, however, courts have established exceptions to this general rule. <i>See, e.g., Thomas v. Mallett</i>, 701 N.W.2d 523 (Wis. 2005) (lead paint manufacturers held liable under a market share liability theory even though the plaintiff could not prove which defendant manufactured injury-causing product). Recently, several courts have further eased plaintiffs' burden of proof by using theories of designer liability to hold companies responsible for injuries to consumers, even though the plaintiff could not show that the defendant manufactured, sold, or distributed the product that caused the plaintiff's injuries.
Practice Tip: One Trick Against Getting Stuck in 'Magic Jurisdictions'
July 31, 2007
South Florida. Rio Grand Valley and Gulf Coast, TX. West Virginia. Cook County, Madison County, and St. Clair County, IL. Ask most Americans what the connection is between those disparate places and you will probably get quizzical looks. Ask most product liability defense attorneys (or their multinational clients), however, and you may get looks of frustration, anger, possibly even apprehension. According to a 2006 report by the American Tort Reform Foundation, those jurisdictions are so-called 'Judicial Hellholes',' which are 'places where judges systematically apply laws and court procedures in an unfair and unbalanced manner, generally against defendants in civil litigations.' <i>See www.atra.org/reports/hellholes</i> at 1.
The Second British Invasion: Foreign Nationals in U.S. Courts
July 31, 2007
When the British invaded in the 1960s, they came as rock and roll bands. Today, the British ' joined by the Italians, the French, and other foreign nationals ' are storming America's shores as plaintiffs in pharmaceutical personal-injury class action and other complex litigation matters. These plaintiffs sue domestic U.S. corporations here for alleged injuries caused abroad by their international subsidiaries. In doing so, the foreign plaintiffs are attempting to circumvent favorable foreign law that protects the corporate defendant. As shown below, the <i>forum non conveniens</i> doctrine is a viable defense to these suits in certain situations.
