Providence, R.I. law firm Mandell Schwartz & Boisclair won a $25.6 million verdict for a plaintiff who sued Rhode Island Hospital in the largest negligence verdict ever in the state.

The state’s largest hospital admitted that seven doctors and two nurses were negligent in caring for a patient who sought treatment in for a head injury in 2009. After his stay in the hospital, he left with permanent, debilitating injuries.

“The hospital conceded before trial that its staff misdiagnosed Carl Beauchamp, failed to check on him and do required exams, failed to communicate with other staff about his condition and missed signs that his condition was worsening during a span of less than 48 hours,” according to a report in The Providence Journal.

Read the story.

DaVita HealthCare Partners has announced that it will pay up to $495 million to settle a whistle-blower lawsuit accusing the Denver company of defrauding the federal Medicare program of millions of dollars, reports The Denver Post.

According to the report, the company, which said it does not admit any wrongdoing, has now settled its third whistle-blower lawsuit since 2012, with payouts totaling nearly $1 billion.

The civil suit includes a claim by Dr. Alon J. Vainer and nurse Daniel D. Barbir, who both worked for DaVita. They said they noticed that DaVita was throwing out good medicine that it then billed Medicare and Medicaid for, according to the lawsuit.

L. Lin Wood of Atlanta represents the plaintiffs.

Read the story.

A federal appeals court has thrown out a lower court’s $40 million verdict in a case that pitted Hi-Tech Pharmaceuticals of Norcross, Ga., against the Federal Trade Commission over advertising for weight-loss supplements.

The 11th circuit ruled that the federal judge didn’t let Hi-Tech present the evidence they had to support their weight loss claims, including “several expert declaration that the representations were substantiated by ‘competent and reliable scientific evidence,'” according to the Eleventh Circuit.

In a release, Hi-Tech said the lower-court judge ruled early on in the litigation that Hi-Tech did not have double-blind, placebo trials to substantiate its advertising claims like “metabolic aid or thermogenic” and — only a Pharmaceutical Phase 1 clinical trial would do — which is estimated at more than $200 million for a weight loss product.

“This is a clean slate for the company,” said Atlanta King & Spalding attorney Merritt E. McAlister, who argued the case for Hi-Tech.

Read the release.

The parent company of New Jersey’s largest utility has reached settlements worth more than $200 million with insurance providers over claims from Hurricane Sandy, according to a quarterly filing, ending a legal dispute stemming from the October 2012 storm, reports NJ.com.

PSEG filed a lawsuit in the summer of 2013 claiming that its insurers wrongly denied the company full coverage for its losses during the storm, NJ.com reports. A state Superior Court judge in Essex County sided with PSEG in that case in March, finding that the company’s damages from storm surge were not subject to a limit for flooding.

Read the story.

Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP represented plaintiffs in $99 million settlement subject to court approval with Eva Airways Corp. in In re: Air Cargo Shipping Services Antitrust Litigation, 06-MD-1775 (JG) (VVP), a multi-district litigation pending in the Eastern District of New York.

To date, plaintiffs have entered into settlements with 24 defendant groups totaling $1.04 billion, of which settlements with seventeen defendant groups for $485.5 million have been granted final approval by the court, the firm said in a release.

These settlements are for significant percentages of defendants’ relevant sales of air cargo shipping services to and from the United States. This litigation is still pending against four defendant groups.

Kaplan Fox serves as one of four co-lead counsel representing a class of direct purchasers from defendants of air cargo shipping services for shipments to, from and within the United States seeking compensation for alleged overcharges sustained as a result of a price-fixing conspiracy alleged against over two dozen airlines.

Chesapeake Energy has agreed to a $25 million civil settlement with Michigan to settle claims by the state that the Oklahoma City-based producer conspired with another exploration-and-production company to fix bids in oil and gas lease sales in the state in 2010, according to a report in Platts.

The settlement resolves allegations that Chesapeake “had conspired with Calgary-based Encana Oil & Gas to avoid bidding wars against each other in Michigan public auctions for oil and gas leases that caused lease prices to plummet in October 2010,” Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette said in a statement announcing the settlement.

Platts says the settlement also addresses complaints that Chesapeake defrauded hundreds of private citizens by fraudulently canceling their oil and gas leases in 2010.

Read the story.

Civil settlements recently have exceeded $260 million in federal litigation stemming from the ongoing U.S. criminal antitrust investigation into auto parts supplier price fixing, reports Automotive News.

U.S. District Judge Marianne Battani gave preliminary approval to a deal for TRW Automotive Holdings Corp. and German affiliate TRW Deutschland Holding GmbH to settle for $8 million with direct purchaser plaintiffs, which are other auto companies who allegedly bought components at colluded prices, the report says.

Since February, Hitachi Automotive Systems Ltd. and Panasonic Corp. have also agreed to pay nearly $83 million combined to settle with dealership and consumer plaintiffs.

Read the story.

The U.S. Supreme Court on April 21 ruled that state law antitrust claims brought against interstate pipeline companies by a group of manufacturers and other retail buyers of natural gas are not pre-empted by the Natural Gas Act, according to a report from Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo.

The court considered whether the Natural Gas Act pre-empts state law antitrust claims when the challenged conduct affects both federally regulated wholesale natural gas prices and non-federally regulated retail natural gas prices, explained author Dionne Lomax.

“According to the majority, the state law price-manipulation claims were not pre-empted because they were directed at practices affecting retail rates, which falls squarely on the states’ side of the dividing line,” she wrote. “Justice Scalia and Chief Justice Roberts strongly dissented.”

Read the report.

Public policy justifications for refusing trademark registration is a common aspect of most trade mark regimes. But balancing the interests of potential trademark owners who wish to market their goods and services under vulgar signs and those who might be offended by such marks, has raised wider concerns about unnecessary restrictions on free speech, according to a white paper published by Primary Opinion.

The paper points to an opinion from the Court of Appeal for the Federal Circuit that upheld a refusal to register the mark THE SLANTS for “entertainment in the nature of live performances by a musical band,” finding that the mark “… would be perceived as disparaging to a substantial composite of the referenced group, namely persons of Asian descent.”

The paper considers some other U.S. cases, such as the case of the name of the Washington Redskins, as well as similar cases in Australia and Europe.

Read the white paper.

A U.S. Supreme Court ruling provides states a greater role in regulating the energy sector, reports Cozen O’Connor.

“In ONEOK, the Court held that states can regulate activities that affect both wholesale and retail transactions to the extent that the regulations do not conflict with Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) regulations. In so doing, wide swaths of conduct continue to be subject to both state energy regulations and generally applicable state laws,” wrote Jonathan M. Grossman and Thomas Ingalls. “While the ruling ensures retail customers a remedy for business practices that are proscribed by state law, it may also subject conduct otherwise permitted by FERC to civil liability if that conduct affects retail transactions. This decision may also hold implications for similar regulatory regimes, such as the Federal Power Act (FPA).”

The decision upheld a lower court decision that allowed a greater role for state courts in regulating the energy sectorfinding that state laws may apply to conduct that affects both wholesale and retail transactions provided those laws do not conflict with FERC regulations. The Court rejected a bid by FERC and natural gas wholesalers to exempt from all state regulation activities that affect both types of sales, the report says.

Read the report.

The Expert Institute interviewed several top accounting experts to find out how you can be sure you’re selecting the right accounting expert witness for your next case. Joe O’Neill’s report is available at TheExpertInstitute.com.

“When it comes to complex financial litigation, an expert witness with the skills and training of an accountant can be an essential part of any case, providing answers and insights into the intricacies of company balance sheets or the value of personal property,” he wrote. “With a range of specializations, certifications, and professional backgrounds, selecting an accounting expert witness can present a unique challenge, however the right expert can greatly increase the odds of victory well before a case ever reaches trial.”

Read the report.

The U.S. Supreme Court has not addressed whether the availability of class arbitration is a substantive “gateway” issue for the courts if the parties have not explicitly delegated the decision to the arbitrator or whether it is a procedural question to be decided by arbitrators, points out Moore & Van Allen in a paper published on its MVA Litigation Blog.

“In the absence of a decree from the Supreme Court on this issue, companies could find themselves facing unfavorable, but reviewable, court determinations in some jurisdictions, while being more tightly bound in other jurisdictions by arbitrator determinations subjecting them to class arbitration against their will,” the paper says. “There are, however, steps that companies can and should take to minimize the risk that this conundrum will manifest and derail their dispute resolution strategies.”

Read the white paper.

Kroll Ontrack presents a complimentary on-demand webinar discussing successful e-discovery on a multi-national project

E-discovery is approached differently in almost every country around the world, and international ediscovery best practices are evolving quickly in response to international litigation and investigations, the company says on its website, eDiscovery.com. “Knowing the country’s approach to ediscovery is integral to ensuring that a multi-national ediscovery project goes smoothly.”

Topics include:

• The biggest differences in approaches to ediscovery in the US, EU and APAC
• How the extraterritorial effect of US regulation affects global companies’ ediscovery tactics
• Techniques for managing ediscovery in international cases and on multiple fronts

Watch the on-demand webinar.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently issued an important decision that highlights a few important takeaways for all government contractors, reports The Federal Government Contracts & Procurement Blog.

The case is K-Con Building Systems, Inc. v. United States, Case No. 2014-5062.

Documents in the case indicate that K-Con Building Systems, Inc. (K-Con) entered into a contract to construct a building for the United States Coast Guard.  After a delay in contract completion, the federal government imposed liquidated damages (or LDs).  K-Con presented three discrete claims against the federal government in the Court of Federal Claims: (1) remission of LDs on the grounds that the LDs clause was unenforceable, (2) remission of LDs on the grounds that K-Con was entitled to a time extension, and (3) additional compensation for constructive changes.

Read the article.

When bringing processes online, the question on most organizations’ minds is no longer whether electronic signatures are legal. Rather, how reliable is the technology? How can the risks associated with electronic transactions be minimized? How do businesses relying on electronic signatures fare in settlement negotiations? And failing settlement, do judges admit and enforce electronically signed records in courts when contested?

Silanis Inc. has posted a free white paper that answers those questions.

This six-page article serves to answer these questions, as well as outline how organizations can leverage electronic signatures in settlement when contested, and, failing settlement, effectively prepare for court should a dispute reach that point. The article reflects the recommendations of Greg Casamento, Partner at Locke Lord LLP, and Frank Zacherl, partner at Shutts & Bowen LLP.

Read the white paper.

Fitch, Even, Tabin & Flannery LLP presents a complimentary webinar, “Practical and Ethical Issues in Compensating Fact Witnesses: Are the Benefits Worth the Headache?” presented by Eric L. Broxterman. The webinar will take place on Wednesday, April 22, 2015, at 9:00 am PDT / 10:00 am MDT / 11:00 am CDT / 12:00 noon EDT.

Not only expert witnesses request payment for their time preparing for trial and their testimony, as once was the trend. Now fact witnesses with special knowledge about the case sometimes expect to be compensated as well. Although rules regarding compensation of fact witnesses have loosened over the years, such payments are not unconstrained. ABA Model Rule 3.4 (b) and the Federal Anti-Gratuity Statute provide some guidance on this topic, but have been criticized for being too vague.

In this webinar, you will learn practical advice on how to structure payments to fact witnesses, how to disclose such payments to opposing counsel, and other procedures that will not only help deflect the unavoidable appearance of impropriety associated from such payments, but will also help prevent sanctions from the court.

During the webinar, we will discuss the following:

• An overview and interpretation of rules and statutes relating to compensation of fact witnesses
• Exemplary legal opinions dealing with such compensation
• Structuring and disclosing payments
• Sanctions and other ramifications if compensation is done incorrectly

Our speaker will be Fitch Even partner Eric L. Broxterman. Eric is a litigator with extensive trial experience in patent cases. A registered patent attorney, he also counsels clients on patent prosecution, infringement/invalidity opinions, and IP transactional issues.

CLE credit has been approved for California and Illinois and is pending in Nebraska. Ethics credit is also pending in those states. Other states may award CLE credit upon attendee request. There is no fee to attend, but please note registration is required.

Register for the webinar.

An article published by Zuckerman Spaeder describes a case that illustrates how easy it is to blur the line between an employee’s intellectual property and that of an employer.

“Content creation is continual for many new economy businesses,” writes Virginia Whitehill Guldi. “Many online businesses have intellectual property as their principal assets. Moreover, the founders of these ventures frequently have many “ideas” floating around.  If a founder contributes intellectual property to the venture, the documents governing the contribution should plainly specify whether it is by royalty-free license or by outright transfer of the interest.”

The case involves more than 35 years of books, sermons and other writings, had been produced by Dr. Robert Schuller while he was employed by  tCrystal Cathedral as its senior pastor.

Read the article.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) has announced an enforcement action against a nationwide debt collection operation and its chief executive officer for allegedly using deceptive threats of criminal prosecution and jail time in order to intimidate consumers into paying debts for bounced checks, reports the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

The company also misled consumers into believing that they must enroll in a costly financial education program to avoid criminal charges, according to the action.

“The proposed order, if approved by a federal district court, would put an end to the illegal activities, impose a civil money penalty of $50,000, and require new consumer disclosures and stronger oversight of the bounced check program,” the CFPB reports.

Read the story.

Two Cozen O’Connor lawyers discuss in a white paper the waiver policies of U.S. federal enforcement agencies overseeing the financial services industry, including the U.S .Department of Justice, Securities and Exchange Commission Commodity Futures Trading Commission and Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, as well as certain others.

Linda Riefberg, a member of Cozen O’Connor’s Commercial Litigation Department, and Christopher Passavia, an associate in the Commercial Litigation Department, are the authors of the paper, which was published in Journal of Securities Operations & Custody.

The article provides some guidance to parties and counsel regarding when waiver may be necessary or advisable and concludes with support for a uniform standard that is protective of the attorney-client and work product privileges, permitting the privilege holder to make a true choice as to whether to waive, free from any obligation or pressure to waive from U.S. agencies, the firm says on its website.

Read the white paper.

Susan G. Schellinger

The Wisconsin Supreme Court recently issued a decision that drives home the importance for businesses and individuals, as policyholders, to immediately report claims to their insurance company, writes Susan G. Schellinger, a shareholder in the Milwaukee office of Davis & Kuelthau.

“Even a small delay may result in a loss of coverage thereby increasing the risk that, if a claim against you is successful, you will be left to pay for the legal fees to defend the claim, along with the damages that you may be ultimately responsible for – even if your insurance policy would have paid those costs in full if you had notified the insurance company promptly,” she writes.

In the recent case of Anderson v. Aul, issued Feb. 25, 2015, the Wisconsin Supreme Court found that under a claims-made-and-reported liability policy, the policyholder’s failure to report the claim during the term of the policy resulted in a loss of coverage.

Read the story.