Litigation Funding Slides Downmarket

Featured Expert Contributor, Litigation Strategies

Joe_Hollingsworth_thumbnail 1McMinn_Donald_MainJoe G. Hollingsworth, Partner, Hollingsworth LLP, with Donald R. McMinn, a Partner with the firm.

 

Click here for a PDF version of this post.

Through their investments in a lawyer’s case(s), litigation funders have fomented economically shaky litigation while making that litigation’s resolution more difficult by disguising the settlement decision maker.  Now litigation funders are entering a new market—one composed of the plaintiffs themselves, rather than their attorneys.  Their new approach is, quite possibly, worse than their initial one.

Web-based platforms speak of creating an ostensible “peer-to-peer” approach by which even individuals can invest in the lawsuits of others.  The platforms allow would-be funders to pick and choose lawsuits in which to invest and then direct the investment straight to plaintiffs, not their lawyers.  Plaintiffs trade their receipt of funds now in return for agreeing to repay the lender out of any recovery. Continue reading “Litigation Funding Slides Downmarket”

WLF Webinar Speakers Critique Public-Nuisance Lawsuits

After long being a mere remnant of the old English common law, public nuisance has been experiencing an elongated renaissance. Courts have expanded the elastic doctrine into an all-purpose cause of action. As a result, lawsuits have alleged that everyday products such as paint, life-saving drugs, and pervasively regulated sources of carbon emissions are an unlawful nuisance. Richard Faulk of Davis Wright Tremaine LLP and Neil Merkl of Kelley Drye & Warren LLP traced this tort’s transformation, discussed its current applications, and explained why judges should curtail its growth.

The Powerpoint slides that accompanied their presentations are available here.

DOJ Memo and Court Opinion Show Trend in Damming Flood of False Claims Act Suits

11th CircuitBusinesses that routinely contract with the government know that while the relationship comes with high financial rewards, it also can expose those companies to massive civil liability.  Under the False Claims Act (FCA), government contractors can find themselves sued for hundreds of millions of dollars based on mere technical violations of complex regulatory schemes.

Luckily, as highlighted in several of our previous posts, the U.S. Supreme Court has recently reinforced the high evidentiary threshold FCA plaintiffs need to meet to bring a successful claim under the most common theory of FCA liability.  A recently disclosed U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) memo and a recent opinion from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit might similarly lead to fewer baseless claims against government contractors. Continue reading “DOJ Memo and Court Opinion Show Trend in Damming Flood of False Claims Act Suits”

FDA Cannot Remain MIA as States’, Cities’ Drug-Litigation Crusade Threatens Regulatory Uniformity

FDAA November 30, 2017 post discussed the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) return to third-party courtroom advocacy for national, uniform regulation of products under its authority. In separate amicus briefs, the agency argued that federal law preempted both New York City’s enforcement of an expanded menu-labeling ordinance and certain claims in a products-liability suit against a medical-device maker. FDA also urged the International Trade Commission (ITC) to terminate an investigation into the drug-or-dietary-supplement status of an imported omega-3 substance because the inquiry would directly conflict with the agency’s authority in that area.

As a long-time proponent of regulatory uniformity, Washington Legal Foundation is encouraged by these developments, and we trust that FDA’s courtroom advocacy is a work in progress. The agency can make an even bigger difference in 2018 by weighing into litigation involving one of FDA’s most highly regulated class of prescription drugs: opioid-based pain medications. Continue reading “FDA Cannot Remain MIA as States’, Cities’ Drug-Litigation Crusade Threatens Regulatory Uniformity”

Supreme Court Given Opportunity to Clarify Specific Personal Jurisdiction

eric-millerGuest Commentary

By Eric D. Miller, Partner, Perkins Coie LLP*

A pending petition for a writ of certiorari presents the United States Supreme Court with an opportunity to clarify whether a state may exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant based solely on the defendant’s sale of components to third parties who incorporate those parts into finished products that are then sold in the forum State.

That question has divided the lower courts since Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court, 480 U.S. 102 (1987). In that case, Asahi, a Japanese manufacturer, had delivered tire-valve assemblies to a Taiwanese tire manufacturer that sold tires throughout the world, including in California. After a California resident was injured in an accident caused by a defective valve, he sued Asahi in California state court. The Supreme Court held that Asahi was not subject to personal jurisdiction in California, but no rationale commanded a majority of the Court. Justice O’Connor, writing for four justices, concluded that the connection between the defendant and the forum state necessary to establish specific personal jurisdiction “must come about by an action of the defendant purposefully directed toward the forum state.” In her view, placing a product “into the stream of commerce, without more,” is not such an act. Justice Brennan, on the other hand, wrote for four justices who believed that placement of goods into the stream of commerce, with the knowledge that they will ultimately be sold in a state, can be sufficient for jurisdiction in that state. Continue reading “Supreme Court Given Opportunity to Clarify Specific Personal Jurisdiction”

New Hampshire Court Deals Setback to Contingency-Fee “Parens Patriae” Suits

new hampshireFollowing the Supreme Court’s decision in Mississippi ex rel. Hood v. AU Optronics, state attorneys-general and their trial bar friends have been able to avoid federal court altogether by simply bringing their class and mass actions through the AG’s office as a parens patriae suit. Not only does this clever maneuver treat courtrooms as cash registers and corrode the integrity of the judicial process, but it also constitutes a staggering conflict of interest, as WLF has long argued. Continue reading “New Hampshire Court Deals Setback to Contingency-Fee “Parens Patriae” Suits”

Federal Officials Display Disregard for Due Process in Opposing “Mens Rea” Reform

barsFair notice of the law is a basic principle that separates liberal democracies like the United States from more authoritarian governments. Fair notice is an especially critical due-process check against government’s power to criminally prosecute. Government must not only prove that a person did the unlawful act, but also that he intentionally engaged in wrongful conduct or knew the conduct was illegal—that it, that he had a guilty mind. So why, then, is the Obama Administration and other elected representatives opposing reforms to ensure that federal criminal laws include a clear criminal-intent standard?

The idea being advanced seems far from revolutionary or controversial, which may explain why politicians and interest groups of every ideological stripe support it: Federal laws with criminal provisions must require prosecutors to prove that the accused possessed the mens rea, or culpable mental state, to commit a crime. If a law lacks such language, then a default intent provision will apply, such as showing that the defendant acted “willfully” or “recklessly.” Continue reading “Federal Officials Display Disregard for Due Process in Opposing “Mens Rea” Reform”