Podcasts about litigation

I'm putting a meme in the show notes. It's my second meme ever, so I'm clearly on a roll. As you can see, it's a picture of two kids taking a test; and the one kid is cheating off the other kid. It's a How to Do Spread Pricing test, and the kid with carrier has his eyes all over the PBM kid's test. For a full transcript of this episode, click here. If you enjoy this podcast, be sure to subscribe to the free weekly newsletter to be a member of the Relentless Tribe. Look, this is a thing now, medical spread. And similar to how PBM spreads adds up to millions, billions of dollars, medical spread is not change in the couch cushions. Did you see the lawsuit against Cigna? Cynthia Fisher mentions it in the conversation that follows. Spoiler alert, here's the numbers: Self-insured employer paid $4 million for a claim. In this case, there's a slide on this Cynthia Fisher gave me, by the way, if you want to see all this written out. So, the employer pays $4 million. The provider was paid—drumroll, please—$876,000. I'm pausing so that sinks in: $4 million paid by the employer; $876,000 of that makes it across the trench to the provider. What happened, you may be wondering, to the $3.2 million in the middle there that the self-insured employer wrote a check to their carrier for? If I'm the employer, I think I would sort of want to know where the $3.2 million went, because … yeah. I think anyone would be hard-pressed to explain how a prudent fiduciary is managing to pay millions of dollars of its plan members' money for services that actually cost a fraction of that. And this is just one claim. But you came here for a show about transparency. Why, you may be wondering, am I talking about medical spread pricing? It's not a super far leap, so many of you are probably there already; but let me quote Chris Deacon. She wrote, “As these conglomerates expand control over healthcare delivery and administration, radical transparency is our only bulwark. Patients and employers deserve to know exactly what they're paying for, without hidden fees disguised as care costs.” I don't think anyone would say that transparency alone is sufficient to transform healthcare, but it's definitely a start for sure. So, yeah … transparency. The reason why lawsuits about overpayments, big ones—and there's a bunch of them afoot right now, not just that Cigna one—but the reason that these are going down in the first place is because hospital prices and carrier prices are now somewhat available. And we have some plan sponsors—the ones who are worried about fiduciary duty, at least—these plan sponsors are able to cobble together the math to catch a glimpse of how much money is vanishing. Dollars they and their members are paying for medical claims that never make it to the care team providing the care. And who is shocked? Are you shocked? I'm not shocked. Let me read a sentence from a carrier contract that Justin Leader sent me the other day. Section 6.3: “Claim administrator's compensation for its services under the agreement shall include the difference between the net claim payments reimbursed to the claim administrator by the employer and the net amounts paid to providers by the claim administrator.” Translation: We are allowed to add spread pricing. We are able to arbitrage. We are able to mark up (or whatever you want to call it) by any amount we want, and you, plan sponsor, just signed up to pay for it. So, that happened. Listen to episode 433 with Justin Leader, by the way. The show is called “The Mystery of the Weekly Claims Wire,” otherwise known as the Not Transparent Weekly Claims Wire. So, look … transparency: We can talk about it in terms of medical prices. We can talk about transparency in terms of contracts. And actually also in terms of quality, but we don't get into that today. Bottom line, plan sponsors need enough access to billing data and hospital prices to calculate how much the middle folks are taking in spread, which is, as aforementioned, quite a thing. For more actual data on the magnitude of spread pricing goings-on, ask Dan Ross. That's my suggestion. He's got spreadsheets he can show you of how much plan sponsors are paying and how much providers are charging and how much is going missing in the middle. For even more on this, read the recent Owens & Minor lawsuit that just got filed, which is just a case study in how hard some of these middlemen/carrier entities are working to obscure and hide what they are doing. Because, yeah, sunshine is a great disinfectant, and that's what transparency is. Sunshine. Here's another interesting link from Chris Deacon. I say all this to say, this is the kind of transparency that Cynthia Fisher and I talk about in the show today: contract transparency, bill charges transparency, and hospital or medical price transparency for plan sponsors. We do not get into today consumers or patients using price information to shop, just FYI. We also do not get into, really, price convergence, which is what happens when hospital and carrier prices become available in a market and is often brought up on or about conversations about transparency. Okay, I will say just one thing about price convergence. There was some chatter in anti-transparency press releases from parties mostly that didn't want to be transparent at all, no way no how. But there was some talk a couple of years ago that if contracted prices became transparent, the healthcare industry would raise their prices to match the highest in the market and the result would be rising healthcare prices and greater total costs. That turns out, it seems, to be false. There's a study that shows that the bottom of the market (those with the cheapest prices) do, in fact, raise their prices but not as much as the top of the market lowers theirs. So, there is actually net savings. Read about the Turquoise Health study and an article that Forrest Xiao and team posted that shows this, and it's the first study of its kind, at least that I have seen. Okay, so contract transparency, data transparency, that's what's on deck to discuss today with Cynthia Fisher, as I have mentioned several times already, who has a long history as an entrepreneur in the healthcare space. So, Cynthia Fisher gets U.S. healthcare, and she gets being a plan sponsor and a fiduciary. She is founder and chairman of PatientRightsAdvocate.org, as well as Power to the Patients. Her focus is on ensuring that all healthcare shows prices up front so that we can have accountability and integrity in billing and at any point of care. Cynthia has said early and often that transparency protects the ultimate purchasers of healthcare—meaning plan sponsors, plan members, and patients—from overcharges, spread pricing, or otherwise. Where there's mystery, there is margin, as Anthony Ciaccia has said often. Cynthia's call to action is as follows, but listen to the show to hear her say it more eloquently. C-suites, CFOs, in-house counsel use purchasing discipline that your company probably uses elsewhere in the procurement of health benefits.  Cynthia Fisher also says as part of the call to action, refuse to sign blank checks to the healthcare industry and refuse anti-audit provisions. She also has a call to action for the accounting industry to stop ignoring auditing the health plans. And this matters just given the bald-faced fact right now that overcharges are party sized. Let me wrap up with this: There's a lot of brute force tactics out there being deployed by some plan sponsors that effectively keep plan members from getting the care they need because they are functionally uninsured. I've done multiple shows on this, and I link to some of them below. I just can't help to think, some of this brute force, you know, high-deductible health plans and some pretty savage cost containment strategies, might be unnecessary if middleman excess profits were eliminated. Well, I say this with some evidence, actually. Andreas Mang (EP419) was on the pod. He talked about saving 15% or more by being smart about contracts and plan assets at the financial and purchasing level. Brian Uhlig … was talking to him the other day. He was telling me he saved $80 million just doing contracts right. Also Claire Brockbank (EP453) talks about this; Cora Opsahl (EP452), too, from 32BJ. Those are two recent shows, again, about how much money can be saved by only signing contracts that ensure transparency. Also mentioned in this episode are Patient Rights Advocate, Chris Deacon, Justin Leader, Dan Ross, Forrest Xiao, Anthony Ciaccia, Andreas Mang, Brian Uhlig, Claire Brockbank, Cora Opsahl, Mark Cuban, and Mark Cuban Cost Plus Drug Company.   You can learn more at PatientRightsAdvocate.org.    Cynthia A. Fisher is founder and chairman of PatientRightsAdvocate.org, a nonprofit organization seeking healthcare price transparency, giving power to American consumers—patients, employers, and unions—to lower their costs of care and coverage through a functional marketplace and choice. Cynthia is best known for her pioneering work as founder and CEO of ViaCord, Inc., a leading price-transparent umbilical cord blood stem cell banking company which she started in 1993. In 2000, she co-founded and was president of the cellular medicines company ViaCell, Inc., of which ViaCord became a division. ViaCell went public in 2005, was acquired by PerkinElmer, and exists today under the ViaCord brand. Cynthia also serves on the public company boards of the Boston Beer Company, Inc. and Easterly Government Properties, Inc. She serves on the Florida Council of 100 and the board of the National Park Foundation, and she previously served on the board of directors of Water.org. Cynthia holds an MBA from Harvard Business School and a bachelor's and honorary Doctorate of Science degree from Ursinus College.   09:03 What is the goal of PatientRightsAdvocate.org? 10:28 Is American competitiveness being affected by healthcare spend? 13:47 Why is transparency a root cause to healthcare costs? 15:11 What's going on across the country to empower transparency in healthcare? 19:31 “I think people are fed up.” 21:22 The Cigna lawsuit in California. 26:36 How do employers navigate contracts against anti-steering? 28:54 EP419 with Andreas Mang. 29:33 EP452 with Cora Opsahl and EP453 with Claire Brockbank. 29:45 EP433 with Justin Leader.   You can learn more at PatientRightsAdvocate.org.   Cynthia A. Fisher of @PtRightsAdvoc discusses #medicalspreadpricing and #contracttransparency on our #healthcarepodcast. #healthcare #podcast #pharma #healthcareleadership #healthcaretransformation #healthcareinnovation   Recent past interviews: Click a guest's name for their latest RHV episode! Stacey Richter (INBW40), Mark Cuban and Ferrin Williams (Encore! EP418), Rob Andrews (Encore! EP415), Brian Reid, Dr Beau Raymond, Brendan Keeler, Claire Brockbank, Cora Opsahl, Dan Nardi, Dr Spencer Dorn (EP451)  

Under the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, the FDA must approve new tobacco products. Wages and White Lion Investments (dba Trion Distribution) and Vapetasia manufacture and sell flavored nicotine-containing liquids for use in refillable e-cigarette systems. They applied for FDA approval in 2020; about ten months later the FDA announced new requirements for approval and, based on those requirements, denied the applications citing the deficiency. The manufacturers challenged the denial and the Fifth Circuit, sitting en banc, found the FDA's actions were arbitrary and capricious. SCOTUS granted the FDA's cert petition and the court heard oral argument on Monday, December 2. Join us in discussing the argument and considering which way the Court might take this.Featuring:Misha Tseytlin, Partner, Troutman Pepper Hamilton Sanders LLPModerator: Hon. Jennifer Perkins, Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One--To register, click the link above.

Mark J. Cantrell, founding partner and shareholder of Cantrell McCulloch, Inc. (CMI), began his real estate career in 1984 with Marcus & Millichap, quickly becoming one of the company's top earners. From 1990 to 1996, he was the leading producer in the company's Texas offices. In 1997, Mark and his brother Tim founded The Cantrell Company (TCC), focusing on multifamily brokerage. Later, in 2001, Mark, Tim, and Bobby McCulloch co-founded CMI, which has since grown into one of Texas' largest property tax consulting firms. Mark leads the day-to-day operations and is in charge of business development, working alongside partner Bobby McCulloch. Under Mark's leadership, CMI now represents over $50 billion in property value across 29 states, including nearly 2,000 multifamily properties valued at over $40 billion. The firm's tax savings for tax year 2023 are expected to exceed $150 million. Mark is often consulted for his expertise in property values and strategies for dealing with appraisal district protests. In addition to his role at CMI, Mark is a partner in several DFW apartment and commercial properties and a founder of Texas Republic Bank. Tune in for insights into property tax consulting, real estate valuation strategies, and the importance of effective business development. To get in touch with Mark, reach out to him on this email address: mcantrell@cmi-tax.com Keeping it Real Estate is brought to you by Granite Towers Equity Group, helping investors create passive income through multifamily real estate. To get in touch with the founders of Granite Towers, Mike Roeder and Dan Brisse, visit https://www.granitetowersequitygroup.com/contact

This past April, the Department of Education published a 423-page final rule amending its implementing for Title IX, which prohibits sex discrimination in federally-funded education programs and activities, with certain, important exceptions. The new rule was consistent with an order issued by President Biden on his first day in office that the Supreme Court’s 2020 decision in Bostock v. Clayton County be applied across the entire federal government.Shortly after the new rule issued, at least ten separate lawsuits challenging it were filed by states, school districts, and parental rights groups in various federal jurisdictions. Thus far, the lawsuits have been uniformly successfully, with the rule now preliminarily enjoined in 26 states and numerous additional school districts. As oral argument is set to begin in the circuit courts on the government’s appeal, this webinar will review this litigation’s history, as well as preview its future, including what it might say about Bostock applicability outside of Title VII.Featuring: Donald A. Daugherty, Senior Counsel, Litigation, Defense of Freedom Institute

This week's topics: • Unique rap styles • Kendrick Lamar v Pusha T • Kendrick improved or fallen off • Best member of the Wu-Tang Clan • Unsung Rappers • Chip's new Grime Scene Saviour song • Drake suing Kendrick • No Malice v Pusha T • Drake messing with his legacy • Lil Wayne upset with Kendrick Lamar • Who has the bigger records, Lil Wayne or Kendrick Lamar • Is it ok to not need your partner • Being self sufficient as a man • Politics breaking up friendships & family • Farms in Zimbabwe • The history of Thanksgiving • #StavrosSays : Pension / Savings / Will / Life Insurance / Funeral Arrangements Connect with us at & send your questions & comments to: #ESNpod so we can find your comments www.esnpodcast.com www.facebook.com/ESNpodcasts www.twitter.com/ESNpodcast www.instagram.com/ESNpodcast @esnpodcast on all other social media esnpodcast@gmail.com It's important to subscribe, rate and review us on your apple products. You can do that here... www.bit.ly/esnitunes

In November, a Dutch court ruled in Shell's favor on an appeal in a big international climate case. It got loads of headlines around the world, but it wasn't quite the win for Shell that a lot of media coverage has made it out to be. Although it walked back some things, the court reaffirmed a key component of the original ruling: that Shell is legally required to reduce its global emissions. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Jeffrey Lichtman dives into the art of trial summation, sharing how a line from a 1977 Robbie Benson film unexpectedly found its way into the John Gotti, Jr. summation. Bottom line: the more that's in your brain, the more that can come out — and help you —  at unexpected times.Next, Jeff unpacks the bail denial of Sean "Diddy" Combs, highlighting the challenges of defending a high-profile client when the media circus and public perception play a heavier role than the facts of the case. From alleged jailhouse rule-breaking to a judge unwilling to take the risk, Jeff explains why this outcome isn't surprising — and how defense lawyers need to be careful not to help the judge hurt their client.Finally, a blistering critique of Joe Biden: the President was spotted with a book by an anti-Israel provocateur while Americans remain hostages in Gaza. Jeff connects Biden's public nod to Palestinian propaganda with the surge of anti-Semitism in North America and abroad, calling out the administration's complicity in enabling global Jew-hate.

Running the two man episode, L.A. & Cam navigate the filthy hip hop waters of the Drake legal petitions and its standing on the beef along with if the Big 3 is still the same. We discuss an incredible down bad moment from the not so friendly neighborhood Spider-Man. LL deserves all the flowersEntertainment TimeCam speaks on the Yacht Rock Doc (Max)L.A. saw Moana 2 and gives non-spoiler reviewCam and L.A. discuss recent rental Strange Darling

Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. shares a list of dirty little tricks used by opposing counsel at deposition that can cause issues for witnesses who have not been trained and prepared for these devious tricks.  1. Repetition of questions (i.e., negative reinforcement)  2. Getting the witness on the Yes Train (lull the witness into an agreement pattern)   3. Using silence after a witness's answer to get the witness to share more  4. Asking for clarification on simple points   5. Being friendly (get the witness to drop their guard)  6. Appealing to the witness's ego   7. Asking the witness to help them understand a witness's answer   8. Triggering the witness to have an emotional reaction   9. Having witnesses check the box next to questions printed out on sheets of paper   10. Asking the witness personal questions, particularly about their family   11. Asking the witness a question while holding a document as if the question is on/from the document Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/a3Q

In this episode, Meg and Dina are joined by Sean McGuiness, Investment Manager, Senior Legal Counsel at Omni Bridgeway. They discuss how the PACCAR decision is impacting the market and what to expect from this government in the legislation tackling it (when it comes through), controversies around litigation funding such as fees the funders charge, why funding is so important for litigation and the upcoming market trends to watch out for.If you'd like to get in contact with Sean, his details are as follows:Sean McGuiness Investment Manager, Senior Legal Counsel OMNI BRIDGEWAYLink House, Level 2, 78 Cowcross Street, London EC1M 6EJ M +44 7725 340 688E smcguiness@omnibridgeway.comwww.omnibridgeway.comThank you for Listening!

John is joined by Bill Price, partner in Quinn Emanuel's Los Angeles office, and Steig Olson, partner in Quinn Emanuel's New York office. They discuss the landmark $110 million jury verdict, trebled to $330 million under antitrust law, Bill and Steig recently won in the U.S. District Court for the District of Northern California. The award will be increased to compensate for the costs and attorney's fees incurred by the plaintiff. The dispute arose when Commercial Metals, a Texas-based competitor of Pacific Steel, purchased and shut down California's only rebar mill, creating a regional monopoly in the rebar market—a critical component in construction. Pacific Steel planned to disrupt this monopoly by building a state-of-the-art, environmentally friendly steel mill using advanced Italian technology. However, Commercial Metals allegedly pressured the Italian supplier to block plaintiff Pacific Steel from accessing the necessary technology by creating a 500-mile radius “exclusivity” zone for the Italian technology around the steel mill they bought and shut down. Victory at trial hinged on simplifying a complex antitrust narrative into a clear, compelling story. Bill and Steig narrowed their case by focusing on the core issues, cutting extraneous expert testimony to streamline the presentation. They used an adverse witness, the former CEO of Commercial Metals, to expose the company's internal communications, which highlighted its intent to maintain market dominance by obstructing Pacific Steel's plans. Bill's cross-examinations proved pivotal in exposing contradictions and discrediting the defendants' narrative. The defendants primarily argued that the relevant market extended beyond California and that their exclusivity agreements were standard competitive practices. However, the jury found these defenses unconvincing, especially in light of evidence of deliberate efforts to suppress local competition and inflate prices. They also discuss the skillful collaboration between Steig, a rising young trial attorney, and Bill, a seasoned litigator renowned for his many trial victories.  This case underscores the importance of strategic focus, persuasive storytelling, and adaptability in high-stakes litigation.Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fmHost: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis HydeMusic and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

In our latest podcast episode of "No Worse Off," Freshfields partner Craig Montgomery is joined by colleagues Madlyn Primoff from New York, Kristina Weiler from Hamburg, and Mijke Sinninghe Damsté from Amsterdam for an in-depth look at how litigation risk impacts restructurings from start to finish. They delve into the complexities that arise in cross-border multi-process restructurings, focusing on key themes such as the role of expert evidence, privilege and discovery issues, and the timing of challenges across different jurisdictions. Stay tuned for valuable insights into anticipating and managing litigation risks throughout the restructuring process, and thank you for listening to "No Worse Off."

Multiple studies have shown that mediation is a faster, more affordable, and more successful approach to family law disputes, and Toronto-based Pace Law Firm (+1-866-340-3175) is one of Ontario's leaders in the field. Go to Pace Law Firm's webiste for more information. Pace Law Firm City: Toronto Address: 191 The West Mall Website: https://pacelawfirm.com Phone: +1 844 943-2983 Email: info@pacelawfirm.com

There's a belief an apology is due over some Government measures undertaken during our pandemic response. Phase One of the Royal Commission Inquiry has delivered 39 recommendations. It highlights that Government messaging was initially effective but became more challenging as objectives shifted. It notes some vaccine requirements were too broad and continued too long. Trust Litigation and Relationship Property Lawyer Lady Deborah Chambers told Ryan Bridge people who lost their jobs due to mandates remain angry. She says there's a large group of people who remain hurt, which negatively impacts our social cohesion. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Join Michael Beloff KC, widely regarded as the ‘The Godfather of Sports Law', in this episode of The Litigation Podcast Shorts. Michael shares fascinating insights and anecdotes from his remarkable career as a barrister specialising in sports disputes.Look out for the fourth and final instalment in Michael's Litigation Podcast Shorts series, where he discusses his final case and offers invaluable insights and practical advice on life and practice as a barrister.More about Michael's life and career can be found in his memoir, MJBQC: A Life Within and Without the Law.

In the third episode of Season 6, we sit down with University of Houston Law Center Professor Nikolas Guggenberger and current UHLC 3L, Jake Evinger. As is customary, Emphasis Added hosts, Graysen Mechler and Geoffrey Okolo, begin the episode by exploring Professor Guggenberger's journey to becoming a lawyer as well as his unique journey from Germany to the United States. The episode then took a slight detour – exploring what common law signifies for countries like Germany, which are traditionally considered civil law systems.Returning to the episode's core topic, algorithms, the guests provide a primer on algorithms and their development over time. They discuss their role in decision-making, the influence of artificial intelligence and machine learning, and the factors that make certain markets particularly suited to algorithmic use.The discussion then pivots to the Department of Justice's lawsuit against RealPage, examining the case's background, allegations of price collusion, and the implications of algorithmic decision-making in rental markets. Professor Guggenberger and Jake provide insights into the origins of RealPage's data, the challenges of regulating algorithms, and the potential remedies available to curb price collaboration.Tune in for great conversation, and to learn a bit more about algorithmic decision making! Subscribe to the Houston Law Review at the link below:https://uhlc.wufoo.com/forms/mkzu7j60z0ytjk/To get a mailing or electronic subscription to the Houston Law Review click here. For more Emphasis Added content, follow us on Instagram and check out our video content on YouTube!

Many people disagree on solutions for the challenges in the U.S. immigration system.While each branch of government continues to arrive at an impasse, employers face labor shortages. The demographics of an aging population and declining birth rates are indisputable. More people worldwide are fleeing societal collapses, climate change and persecution. And over 10 million people lack legal immigration status in the United States, with immigration courts facing a backlog of over 3 million deportation cases.Join Cornell Law School professor Stephen Yale-Loehr and Distinguished Visiting Immigration Scholars Amy Nice, Charles Kamasaki, Marielena Hincapié, Randel Johnson and Theresa Cardinal Brown as they discuss what immigration laws and policies might change post-election and next year.What You'll LearnHow the current cohort of immigrants differs from those of the pastWhat might be in store for DACA and other immigration issuesThree targeted immigration reforms that most Americans can agree on: border management and asylum policy, worker programs and DREAMer protectionsWhat you can do to influence immigration policyThe Cornell Keynotes podcast is brought to you by eCornell, which offers more than 200 online certificate programs to help professionals advance their careers and organizations. Learn more in our Immigration Law certificate program co-authored by Stephen Yale-Loehr.Additional ResourcesCornell Whitepaper - Immigration Reform: A Path ForwardCornell Keynotes Podcast: Three Ways to Reform Immigration NowCornell Law School Migration and Human Rights ProgramCornell University Migrations ProgramCharles Kamasaki, Immigration Reform: The Corpse That Will Not DieDid you enjoy this episode of the Cornell Keynotes podcast? Watch the full Keynote. Follow eCornell on Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn, TikTok, and X.

Riker Danzig partners Stuart Lederman and Rudy Randazzo were our special guests for the 5th episode of  Season 3, moderated by our co-hosts Michael O'Donnell and Bethany Abele.  Stuart and Rudy practice in Riker's Governmental Affairs and Litigation practices with extensive experience in Eminent Domain and Condemnation Law as well as Construction Law, regularly navigating issues of title, and frequently interacting with our title insurance attorneys at the intersection of title law and real property condemnations.  Stuart and Rudy represent both governmental entities who are acquiring properties, and also property owners whose properties are targeted to be taken for particular government projects. What You Will Hear on This Episode: What are the key stages of the condemnation process? Is it important for property owners to attend early meetings on government projects that may impact their properties? What are the public purposes for which a property may be taken? To whom may the government delegate the power of condemnation? Does the governmental entity have the right to conduct a property title search in advance of a taking? How is fair market value determined? Is lost business taken into consideration? What are bona fide negotiations and when can a condemnation complaint be filed? Whose interests are important in properties being taken? What is a “quick take”? Can a property be taken and put to public use even while litigation over rights and fair market value is pending? What are critical defenses to a real property taking? How do you prove a pretextual purpose (improper motives, bad faith or abuse of power)? (Essex Fells v. Kessler Institute and Atlantic City v. Trump Casino) What constitutes failure to negotiate, and can this prevent the taking? What is the role of condemnation commissioners, and who has the burden of presenting evidence to establish value at trial? What are the implications if it is not a “full” taking? Is the government required to pay for another party's environmental damage to the property? What are the special implications for lien holders of a property being taken? Are judgments final, and can the property owner appeal? What is an inverse taking? In addition, Stuart and Rudy shared some interesting  anecdotes from their wide-ranging experience representing government agencies tasked with taking property, including allowing a “jury view” of the condemned property during a trial on the taking,  and another case where the property owner resisted the taking by hiring private militia to face down the bulldozers, creating a standoff between the armed militia and the local National Guard brought in by the governmental entity.  They also touched on their related Construction Litigation practice and the dovetailing of the two practices, particularly when temporary easements are recorded on taken properties for large construction projects, and construction delays ensue with adverse effects. Next, Bethany interviewed our newest associate in the Title Insurance practice, Shelley Wu, who discussed Moldovan v. Long, No. 1 CA-CV 23-0470, 2024 Ariz. App., Unpub. LEXIS 460 (Ct. App. May 30, 2024). In this case in the Arizona Court of Appeals, the court affirmed a summary judgment in favor of a settlement/escrow agent, finding no breach of duty where the agent sufficiently disclosed to the seller the existence of a potentially fraudulent deed but did not further investigate or determine its validity. Bethany and Shelley discussed many of the noteworthy statements in the appeals court's ruling that sheds light on the responsibilities of disclosing additional deeds, and concerning negligent misrepresentation claims. Key questions addressed in Moldovan v. Long: What are the responsibilities of escrow agents and where are those responsibilities outlined? In particular, what are the duties of an agent when a suspicious or potenti...

Today:Attorney General Andrea Campbell joins Jim and Margery at the Boston Public Library on Nov. 26, 2024.

Ready to diversify outside the stock market? EquityMultiple brings you streamlined real estate investing. Access vetted, cash-flowing opportunities from anywhere. Start today, with just $5K, at equitymultiple.com _________ Dr. Amna Shabir interviews Dr. Saba Fatima on the emotional struggles that come with medical malpractice cases. Drawing from her own experience, Dr. Fatima opens up about the feelings of isolation, shame, and anxiety that many doctors face especially since they're often told not to talk about their cases. She explains why it's so important to have open conversations to break the stigma and support each other. Dr. Fatima also talks about the bigger problems in healthcare that push doctors toward defensive medicine and shares why building support systems is key. She encourages self-forgiveness and reminds doctors that mistakes can happen in a high-pressure field. They also discussed ways to create safer work environments, foster a culture of fairness, and deal with the emotional impact of systemic failures. Dr. Fatima's story and advice are all about building a supportive community where doctors can feel heard and focus on both their well-being and better patient care. Bio Saba Fatima, MD Saba Fatima, MD is a Pediatric Hospitalist and Assistant Professor at KU School of Medicine Wichita. She is a passionate advocate for physician wellness and addressing secondary trauma in healthcare workers. She is Certified in Narrative Medicine from Columbia University. She hosts the Muted in Medicine podcast, where she sheds light on often-silenced topics in healthcare. As a writer, she contributes to various academic journals and blogs, spreading awareness on physician wellness issues that are often left unspoken   Socials:    https://www.instagram.com/mutedinmedicine?igsh=YWJ5YW1ndHpoamY0 https://www.linkedin.com/in/saba-fatima-md-78894a105?utm_source=share&utm_campaign=share_via&utm_content=profile&utm_medium=ios_app   https://youtube.com/@mutedinmedicine?si=Kqk-PQFAYcT2Ydq4   Amna Shabbir, MD  Dr. Amna Shabbir is a physician and podcast host focused on physician recruitment and early career development. She is dedicated to helping healthcare professionals navigate their careers and find fulfillment in their work. Dr. Shabbir's passion for empathy and mental health drives her to explore innovative approaches to improve physician well-being and patient care. Links: LinkedIn: Dr. Amna Shabbir Did you know…  You can also be a guest on our show? Please email me at brad@physiciansguidetodoctoring.com to connect or visit www.physiciansguidetodoctoring.com to learn more about the show! Socials: @physiciansguidetodoctoring on FB  @physicianguidetodoctoring on YouTube @physiciansguide on Instagram and Twitter

Theories of nuisance, market-share, and consumer protection liability have become increasingly popular among plaintiffs who cannot trace an alleged harm to any specific defendant. Recently, states and local governments have sought to impose market-share liability on companies based on allegedly misleading statements (or silence) about the potential effects of their products. These cases raise difficult legal issues that remain underdeveloped because the risk of a crippling damages award often pressures companies to settle claims early in litigation.Featuring:Mr. Theodore J. Boutrous, Partner, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLPMr. Elbert Lin, Chair, Issues & Appeals, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLPMr. Oramel H. Skinner, III, Executive Director, Alliance For ConsumersModerator: Hon. William H. Pryor, Jr., Chief Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit

In recent years, the legal profession has increasingly prioritized diversity in law firm hiring and litigation leadership, driven by demands from corporate clients, alumni, and judges. Efforts to increase the representation of women and non-white lawyers have become so integral that they are now reflected in proposed formal rules, such as the FRCP 16.1, which would require judges to consider identity characteristics when selecting leadership teams for multidistrict litigation (MDL). This potential codification raises important questions about the legality and implications of identity-based preferences in the legal profession. How should client preferences for diversity be balanced with Title VII commitments, and what role should diversity of background play in law firm hiring and the selection of MDL legal teams? This panel will explore these issues, examining both the legal and policy arguments surrounding identity-based preferencing in legal employment.Featuring:Dean andré douglas pond cummings, Dean and Professor of Law, Widener University Commonwealth Law SchoolProf. Darrell D. Jackson, Winston Howard Distinguished Professor of Law, University of Wyoming College of LawMr. Roger Severino, Vice President, Domestic Policy & The Joseph C. and Elizabeth A. Anderlik Fellow, The Heritage FoundationMs. Tobi Young, Senior Vice President Legal & Chief Corporate Affairs Officer, Cognizant; Board of Directors, HalliburtonModerator: Hon. Patrick J. Bumatay, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Delligatti v. United States concerns whether a crime that requires proof of bodily injury or death, but can be committed by failing to take action, has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force.Known by some as the "non-violent murder case" Delligatti ties into a larger conversation on the way "violent"/"use-of-force" crimes are defined categorically rather than on a solely case-by-case basis.Oral Argument was heard on November 12, 2024.Join us for this Courthouse Steps program where we break down and analyze OA and the potential outcomes of this case.Featuring:Robert K. McBride, Partner, Taft Stettinius & Hollister

In 1996, the FTC and DOJ issued Statements of Antitrust Enforcement Policy in Health Care. The statements addressed important topics, such as hospital mergers, information sharing, joint purchasing, and provider joint ventures. The DOJ withdrew the guidelines in February 2023, and the FTC followed in July. Some healthcare companies – and businesses in other sectors – that have established relationships in reliance on these statements are concerned as to whether long-running arrangements should be modified or terminated. This panel will discuss their perspectives on the withdrawal of the statements on future initiatives, and what previous arrangements may be at risk.Featuring:John Carroll, Partner in the Antitrust & Competition Practice Group, Sheppard Mullin Richard Feinstein, Partner, Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, Former Director of the Bureau of Competition at the Federal Trade CommissionLaurel Kilgour, Research Manager, American Economic Liberties ProjectBarry Nigro, Partner, Global Chair, Antitrust and Competition, Fried FrankProf. Barak Richman, Alexander Hamilton Professor of Business Law, George Washington University Law SchoolModerator: Adam Biegel, Partner, Co-chair of the Litigation & Trial Practice Group, Alston & Bird --To register, click the link above.

Stephen Grootes speaks to Natalie Scott, Head of Sustainability, Werksmans Attorneys   about the significant implications of the Dutch Court of Appeal's decision in the Shell climate change case, and what it means for climate litigation in South Africa.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Tennessee v. Cardona concerns the Biden Administration's recent revisions to regulations under Title IX. Particularly at issue are those provisions that redefine the term “sex” to include “gender identity” for purposes of the regulation. Six states, including Tennessee, along with an association of Christian educators and a female high-school student sued, alleging the regulation as […]

Last year, the Supreme Court decided the cases of Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard and Student for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina (SFFA). The Court held that the admissions programs of Harvard and UNC violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The decision has been interpreted broadly as outlawing race affirmative action in college and university admissions. However, in footnote 4 of the opinion, the Court indicated that its decision “does not address the issue” of race-based admissions programs at the military academies. Shortly after the release of SFFA, Students for Fair Admissions sued both West Point and the Naval Academy to directly challenge their admissions programs. This webinar will provide a litigation update in these cases and explore the ramifications of the exemption to the SFFA holding created by footnote 4 of the opinion.Featuring:John E. McGlothlin, Special Projects Officer, National Guard Bureau, Office of the Inspector General; Adjunct Professor, University of Maryland Global CampusJohn J. Park, Jr., General Counsel, Indigo Energy(Moderator) Devon Westhill, President and General Counsel, Center for Equal Opportunity

The U.S. passenger airlines have been active in mergers and acquisitions since last year or so, with the Alaska/Hawaiian acquisition, the failed JetBlue/Spirit merger, and more being proposed. But how are these deals and airline competition in general analyzed from an economic perspective? Dr. Gautam Gowrisankaran, Professor of Economics at Columbia University and Senior Advisor at Cornerstone Research, speaks with Anora Wang and Kelsey Paine on market definition, calculation of market share, entry, and beyond. Listen to this episode to learn how economic analyses lay out in specific airline transactions. With special guest: Dr. Gautam Gowrisankaran, Professor of Economics, Columbia University; Senior Advisor; Cornerstone Research  Related Links: Chris Bruegge, Gautam Gowrisankaran, & Alex Gross, A Policy Function Approach to Price Effects: an Application to the JetBlue-Spirit Merger (Nov. 13, 2024) Hosted by: Anora Wang, Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP and Kelsey Paine, Baker Botts LLP

Tennessee v. Cardona concerns the Biden Administration’s recent revisions to regulations under Title IX.Particularly at issue are those provisions that redefine the term "sex" to include "gender identity" for purposes of the regulation. Six states, including Tennessee, along with an association of Christian educators and a female high-school student sued, alleging the regulation as amended threatened student privacy, safety, and free speech." They also sought an injunction to stop the full rule from going into effect based on the immediate and irreparable harm they argued it would cause. The District Court granted an injunction and the government’s request to stay the injunction was granted by the Sixth Circuit. The Supreme Court also denied the government’s application for a stay of the injunction. The case is now being argued on the merits.Join us for a litigation update on this important case. Featuring:Whitney D. Hermandorfer, Director of Strategic Litigation Unit, Office of the Tennessee Attorney General(Moderator) Samuel D. Adkisson, Associate, Cooper & Kirk, PLLC

Bobby interviews Nick Atwood, a trial lawyer with Ritchie Rock & Atwood in Shawnee, Oklahoma. Bobby and Nick discuss the procedural process for ED cases in Oklahoma, a protracted and unique six-year case that Nick recently tried against the Oklahoma Turnpike Authority, attorneys' fees issues under OK law, and how to work with clients. Throughout, Bobby asks Nick detailed discovery, procedure, and trial strategy questions, including how to prepare clients for taking the stand, how to handle a landowner client whose valuation is higher than the appraiser, and negotiating with opposing counsel even when those efforts fail.  The cross exam includes a personal view into Nick's first car and life in outer space.  Links: https://www.rrmalaw.com/team/nick-atwood

First, The ACLU and the Center For Protest Law and Litigation were denied a preliminary injunction in their lawsuit against UC Santa Cruz. Senior Staff Attorney Chessie Thatcher speaking on behalf of the ACLU. Then, AJP's Elizabeth Robinson explains what is to come for arrested protesters at UC Irvine. Among the protestors was professor Tiffany Willoughby-Herard. Willoughby-Herard was famously arrested while decrying the police and the genocide in Gaza last spring.

Join Academy Past President and the host of The Mentor Esq. podcast, Andrew Smiley, for his newest CLE of the season with Rosa M. Feeney, Esq. that talks about insurance coverage issues this one specifically talks about issues that arise when litigating Construction Accident cases. Earn 1 Professional Practice Credit with The New York State Academy of Trial Lawyers. Masters Program Eligible - Negligence To view the materials for this episode, click here. To enter the code for CLE credit, click here. Contact Andrew Smiley at Andrew@thementoresq.com Contact Rosa Feeney at rfeeney@smileylaw.com  For more in-depth discussions and other topics such as these, please listen to the podcast, The Mentor Esq., which is available on all major podcast platforms.

In this episode of the Energy Evolution Podcast, host Taylor Kuykendall discusses climate litigation with legal experts Hannah Weisman, a professor of law at Penn State University, and Phil Goldberg, special counsel with the Manufacturers Accountability Project. Weisman argues that litigation is a crucial avenue for accountability in the face of legislative inaction on climate change, while Goldberg contends that courts lack the tools to effectively address broader policy issues and that litigation may divert attention from meaningful legislative solutions. The conversation highlights the differing perspectives on the role of the judiciary in climate action, with Weisman emphasizing the urgency of the crisis and Goldberg cautioning against using the courts as a primary mechanism for policy change. Subscribe to Energy Evolution to stay current on the energy transition and its implications.

It has returned!  More than just a legal event, the General Counsel Conference East empowers today's legal leaders for growth, innovation, and excellence. Designed specifically for general counsel, legal executives, and industry professionals, the GCC East is the premier gathering that offers unique opportunities for learning, networking, and professional development.  With a description like that, how could Legal Speak not be there doing live episodes … especially when it's right up the street from the home office at the luxurious Mariott Marquis in Times Square, New York.  In this episode, host Patrick Smith sat down with Katie Dugan, the VP of Global Labor and Employment at Match Group and Carol Goodman, a Partner, Co-Chair of Litigation and Chair of Employment at Herrick

Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. is joined by JFK assassination expert, journalist, and author Jefferson Morley to discuss the latest updates on the still unreleased government documents associated with the JFK assassination. Jefferson provides an overview of where things stand currently with release of JFK assassination documents, particularly with regards to the active litigation around these records' release. Bill and Jefferson compare and contrast the JFK assassination to the assassination attempts on President Reagan and President Trump. They also talk about what people may not know or realize about the JFK assassination. Lastly, Bill and Jefferson talk about the state of journalism today. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/dQe

John Quinn is joined by Essam Al Tamimi, Founder and Chairman of Al Tamimi & Company, the leading law firm in the UAE and the broader Middle East and Africa region. Founded in 1989 in Sharjah, UAE, the firm has grown to encompass 17 offices across 10 countries with 420 lawyers, dominating the legal landscape in the UAE.  Mr. Al Tamimi explains his firm's origins and his vision of creating a leading regional law firm, inspired by international models like Clifford Chance and Kim & Chang.  John and Mr. Tamimi discuss the UAE's legal evolution, starting from scratch with the UAE's independence in 1971 to its current sophisticated blend of common and civil law.  This transformation is supported by specialized jurisdictions like the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) and Abu Dhabi Global Market (ADGM), which offer international standards in arbitration and legal proceedings.  Mr. Al Tamimi notes how these developments have fostered competition and elevated local legal standards.  He also describes the UAE's rapid economic and social development, emphasizing its visionary leadership, diversification, and commitment to tolerance and innovation.  He explains how the UAE has addressed negative stereotypes about its business environment, emphasizing the UAE's stringent new money-laundering regulations and its open approach to foreign investment.  The nation's inclusive ethos, welcoming diverse expatriates and fostering collaboration, has been key to its success.  Looking ahead, Mr. Al Tamimi underscores the importance of focusing on future-facing sectors like AI, renewable energy, healthcare, and education.  He believes these fields will drive growth and advises young lawyers to align with emerging global trends.  Mr. Al Tamimi's passion for mentorship and his disciplined lifestyle reflect his commitment to sustaining the firm's legacy in the UAE's evolving legal and economic landscape.Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fmHost: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis HydeMusic and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

As if the rocketing evolution of technology isn't presenting enough challenges to inventors under patent law, the Supreme Court has done its part, too. I just finished reading Graham Moore's novel "The Last Days of Night," where titans of the late 1800s and early 1990s Thomas Edison, George Westinghouse, and Nikola Tesla "clashed with sparks flying over AC and DC electrical power systems," a corny description suggested by my AI editor. Having read the book, it was fun to speak with modern day attorney Ryan N. Phelan of modern day Marshall Gerstein. Listen as this seasoned patent attorney walks me through: The intricate landscape of patent eligibility in the United States. Twin patent law decisions from the Supreme Court -- Mayo and Alice (the name of a singer-songwriter group if I ever heard one, or a sandwich shop).The proposed Patent Eligibility Restoration Act and how -- if passed -- it could unlock new opportunities for innovation amid the challenges posed by judicial exceptions. *******This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal of Emerging Issues in Litigation. The Journal is a collaborative project between HB Litigation, a brand of Critical Legal Content (a custom legal content service for law firms and service providers) and the vLex Fastcase legal research family, which includes Full Court Press, Law Street Media, and Docket Alarm.If you have comments, ideas, or wish to participate, please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.Tom HagyLitigation Enthusiast andHost of the Emerging Litigation PodcastHome PageFollow us on LinkedInSubscribe on your favorite platform! 

Is the law fit for purpose?This is one question Nikki Reisch, Director of the Climate and Energy Program at the Center for International Environmental Law, and I discuss on today's episode. Nikki joins me to explain the wave of climate litigation taking place around the world, making climate a human rights issue for the first time in history. We discuss this in the context of nation states currently undermining international law on the global stage. Nikki insists that the law is a powerful tool which must be both used and protected by support from the public arena, reminding us that the basis for law is consent, and that these landmark decisions provide credence for citizens to take action on the ground against climate inaction. Planet: Critical is 100% independent and community-powered. If you value it, and have the means, become a paid subscriber today. Get full access to Planet: Critical at www.planetcritical.com/subscribe

The Atlantic City Fire Department requires all personnel who respond to fires or other emergencies to follow the proper use of an air mask when exposed to hazardous air. To ensure a proper fit, employees are prohibited from growing facial hair that could interfere with the mask seal. Plaintiff, Pastor Alexander Smith requested a religious […]

Recently, the Everlaw Summit, the annual customer conference of the e-discovery company Everlaw, convened in San Francisco. In his keynote address there, cofounder and CEO AJ Shankar announced the general availability, after a year of beta testing, of a suite of generative AI features for reviewing, coding and analyzing documents in discovery and litigation prep.  LawNext host Bob AmbrogiI was at the conference, and the next morning, he sat down with Shankar for this conversation about Everlaw's development of these AI tools and Shankar's views on how gen AI will impact legal professionals. As you'll hear him say, he makes no bones about calling it a game changer.  With a doctorate in computer science from the University of California, Berkeley, Shankar founded Everlaw in 2011 as one of the earliest cloud-based e-discovery platforms. He has been on this podcast twice before: In April 2019, where he discussed the company's founding and early development. In November 2021, just after Everlaw became one of the first legal tech companies to achieve unicorn status, or a valuation of over $1 billion.    Thank You To Our Sponsors This episode of LawNext is generously made possible by our sponsors. We appreciate their support and hope you will check them out. Paradigm, home to the practice management platforms PracticePanther, Bill4Time, MerusCase and LollyLaw; the e-payments platform Headnote; and the legal accounting software TrustBooks. Briefpoint, eliminating routine discovery response and request drafting tasks so you can focus on drafting what matters (or just make it home for dinner). Littler, local everywhere.  Steno, reliable court reporting with a revolutionary approach   If you enjoy listening to LawNext, please leave us a review wherever you listen to podcasts.  

The Atlantic City Fire Department requires all personnel who respond to fires or other emergencies to follow the proper use of an air mask when exposed to hazardous air. To ensure a proper fit, employees are prohibited from growing facial hair that could interfere with the mask seal. Plaintiff, Pastor Alexander Smith requested a religious accommodation to wear a short beard, arguing that growing the beard was an exercise of his faith and that wearing the mask was not part of his technician role in the department. This request was denied, citing safety concerns, prompting Smith to pursue legal action, alleging First Amendment, Equal Protection, and Title VII violations. However, the District Court of New Jersey ruled in favor of the fire department. Together, the Harvard Religious Freedom Clinic and First Liberty Institute are appealing his case to the Third Circuit, with oral argument on October 30. Join Kayla Toney, who is arguing the case, and Katie Mahoney, Clinical Instructional Fellow at the Harvard Religious Freedom Clinic, as they break down the argument.Featuring:Kayla Toney, Associate Counsel, First Liberty Institute(Moderator) Kathryn Mahoney, Clinical Instructional Fellow, Religious Freedom Clinic, Harvard Law School