Litigation Headlines

A former Dechert associate has sued the firm, claiming it exaggerated his corporate work opportunities and later fired him in part because he is an Orthodox Jew. Marc Lubin's suit says Dechert, especially partner Malcolm Dorris, told him in interviews that he would participate in endless transactional work with major clients, but he ended up doing "glorified paralegal work." He also claims that, when he was fired, Dorris said Lubin "was different," which he understood "to refer to his religious status."

A federal appeals court has put research analysts on the same footing as stock issuers for claims they should be held liable for misrepresentations under the fraud-on-the-market theory. The Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that no greater showing is required to warrant application of that presumption than is the case in lawsuits against securities issuers.

A federal judge in Boston certified two nationwide classes and set the stage for two more trials in the massive, multidistrict wholesale drug pricing case against AstraZeneca and Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. The case alleges that the companies published fraudulently inflated average wholesale drug prices, which led consumers and insurance companies to pay higher prices for branded and generic drugs used to treat serious illnesses like cancer and HIV.

McDermott, Will & Emery and client Medtronic Inc. must pay $4.3 million in attorney fees as punishment for alleged "abuse of advocacy" in a patent case, a Colorado federal judge ordered on Sept. 30. Judge Richard Matsch had slammed top San Francisco Bay Area IP litigators Terrence McMahon and Vera Elson in a February sanctions order for misleading jurors in a patent fight between Medtronic Inc. and BrainLAB over technology used to control surgical instruments.

After filing a personal injury claim against a driver who rear-ended him in a fender-bender, Long Island chiropractor Lewis J. Bazakos was required to submit to a medical examination before a physician of the defendant's insurer's choosing. During that exam, Bazakos allegedly suffered a second injury. A split panel of New York's Appellate Division, 2nd Department, called the action one for negligence. The court reversed a Nassau County Supreme Court holding and reinstated the case.

Barbie maker Mattel Inc. filed court papers on Sept. 29 asking a federal judge to block its competitor MGA Entertainment Inc. from making or selling Bratz dolls. Attorneys for Mattel filed the papers in U.S. District Court just over a month after a jury awarded the El Segundo, Calif.-based company $100 million in damages in the fight over the pouty-lipped dolls.

Strict products liability plaintiff failed to state claim against tractor trailer manufacturer under Illinois law where suit alleged unreasonably dangerous design and condition of underride guard, which failed during accident in which plaintiff's vehicle collided with trailer; Illinois is not among states that have recognized cause of action for alleged defective design in favor of those who collide with defendant manufacturer's vehicle.

Slip-and-fall plaintiff failed to prove department store's constructive notice of hazard in aisle where evidence failed to demonstrate that spilled substance had been present for more than ten minutes.

District court lacked diversity jurisdiction over lawsuit involving partnership where one partner was dual American-British citizen domiciled in foreign state.

Strict product liability emerged in the 1960s and 1970s as a potent force shaping the way product manufacturers do business in America. Although the relevant common law of each state has been modified from time to time since its inception, the basic parameters of the theory have been settled for some time. Now, however, market conditions are changing dramatically, and the law is likely to change with it.