|
|
|
  |
Doe v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
On December 12, 2008, WLF filed a brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, urging it to protect U.S. companies from lawsuits over working conditions, where the overseas plaintiffs do not work for the U.S. companies but rather work for companies that sell to the U.S. companies. WLF argued that businesses should be held responsible for working conditions at their own facilities, not at the facilities of other companies over which they have no control. WLF argued that exposing U.S. companies to liability based on overseas firms' working conditions would discourage international trade, thus increasing the costs of goods for American consumers. Paradoxically, it would harm the very foreign workers who are bringing suit, because reduced foreign trade would reduce employment opportunities for foreign workers, WLF argued. WLF also filed a brief in the case when it was in federal district court. The plaintiffs have appealed from the district court's dismissal of the case. |
|
|
Forest Laboratories, Inc. v. Caraco Pharmaceutical Laboratories, Ltd.
On December 10, 2008, WLF filed a brief in the U.S. Supreme Court, urging it not to permit a generic drug manufacturer to file suit seeking a declaration that it is not violating a patent, when the patentee has made clear that it does not believe that the manufacturer is violating the patent. WLF argued that federal courts lack jurisdiction over such suits because there can be no justiciable dispute when there does not exist a controversy between parties having adverse interests. WLF argued that permitting courts to exercise jurisdiction in such cases would expand federal court jurisdiction beyond limits imposed by the Constitution and would put courts in the business of rendering advisory opinions. WLF noted that Congress adopted the Hatch-Waxman Act in 1984, which establishes rules governing the marketing of generic drugs. If a generic drug company is unhappy with those rules, it should ask Congress to revise the rules, not complain to a court about the their fairness, WLF argued. |
|
|
Burlington No. & Santa Fe RR v. U.S.
On November 24, 2008, WLF filed a brief in the U.S. Supreme Court, urging it to reverse the Ninth Circuit’s broad imposition of liability under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA). The outcome of the Burlington case will have a tremendous impact on all businesses, which routinely are being held jointly and severally liable for cleanup costs of hazardous waste sites instead of only for a portion of the costs, based on their contribution to the waste. The outcome of a companion case, Shell Oil Co. v. U.S., is important as well because the Ninth Circuit essentially held Shell liable as an “arranger” under CERCLA merely for selling chemicals or other hazardous substances to third parties, who in turn generated the waste. Unless these decisions are reversed, businesses will face huge liabilities for cleanup costs of wastes that they did not generate. |
|
|
Special Report: Federal Erosion of Business Civil Liberties
WLF has released its Special Report: Federal Erosion of Business Civil Liberties, an up-to-date analysis of the key legal, judicial, and regulatory developments over the years of the growing trend at the federal level to criminalize normal business activities. With an Introduction by former Attorney General Dick Thornburgh, WLF's report critically examines seven legal topics, including the erosion of the attorney-client privilege and the dilution of mens rea requirements. The report discusses the increasing and unwarranted criminal prosecution of businesses and individuals by the Department of Justice and the Environmental Protection Agency for regulatory matters when administrative or civil remedies would be more appropriate. WLF also produced a useful companion Timeline fold-out chart that summarizes the key cases and events discussed in the 125-page report. |
|
 |
 |
 |
| |
|
October 30, 2008
WLF MEDIA BRIEFING
Self-Regulation of Advertising: Does it Effectively Advance Free Speech & Consumer Protection?
Mary K. Engle, Assoc. Dir. for Advertising Practices, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade Commission
Joan Z. Bernstein, Of Counsel, Bryan Cave
C. Lee Peeler, President and CEO, National Advertising Review Council
 Download a PDF of the Invitation
Download Speaker Biographies
 View Webcast
|
|
|
September 16, 2008
WLF MEDIA BRIEFING
Appellate Experts to Preview October 2008 Supreme Court Term
Honorable Dick Thornburgh, Counsel, Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Preston Gates Ellis LLP
J. Scott Ballenger, Partner, Latham & Watkins
Sri Srinivasan, Partner, O’Melveny & Myers LLP
Download a PDF of the Invitation
View Webcast
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
| |
|
December 10, 2008
WLF WEB SEMINAR SERIES
FCPA Enforcement & Financial Crisis: How World-Wide Government Intervention Affects Foreign Corrupt Practices Compliance
Mark A. Srere, Partner, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP
Brian M. Privor, Associate, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP
Download a PDF of the Invitation
Download Speaker Biographies
View Webcast
|
|
November 10, 2008
WLF WEB SEMINAR SERIES
Recent “Off-Label Promotion” Settlements: Extracting Enforcement Trends and Lessons for Health Care Product Producers
Marc J. Scheineson, Partner, Alston & Bird LLP
Jacqueline C. Baratian, Counsel, Alston & Bird LLP
Download a PDF of the Invitation
Download Speaker Biographies
View Webcast
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
| |
SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Alabama; Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. v. Alabama
On December 15, 2008, WLF filed a brief in the Supreme Court of Alabama, urging it to overturn muti-million dollar judgments entered against two major pharmaceutical companies. The judgments were based on allegations that the companies misreported the "wholesale acquisition cost" (WAC) and "average wholesale price" (AWP) for their products. WLF argued that Alabama failed to introduce evidence that the defendants did anything that could constitute fraud; they did not provide misleading information, Alabama did not rely on any such information, any reliance would have been unreasonable, and Alabama suffered no damages. The suit involves payments made by Alabama in connection with its administration of Medicaid. When Medicaid recipients obtain drugs from pharmacies, Alabama pays a fee designed to cover the pharmacies' acquisition and dispensing costs. Alabama contends that it paid more money to pharmacies than it would have had the defendants not improperly inflated WAC and AWP figures.
More Information:
12/19/2008: Press Release PDF
12/15/2008: Download
the Brief
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
| |
December 12, 2008
Mens Rea Requirement: A Critical Casualty Of Overcriminalization
By Professor John Hasnas, an associate professor of business at the McDonough School of Business at Georgetown University in Washington, DC.
Legal Opinion Letter, December 12, 2008, 2 pages
Download a PDF of the Publication
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Banning Kids’ Food Ads: An Unconstitutional And Unnecessary Anti-Obesity Policy Prescription
By Anthony E. DiResta, a partner in the international law firm of Reed Smith LLP, and Andrew R. Boortz, an associate at the firm.
Working Paper, December 2008, 20 pages
Download PDF of the Publication
|
|
Texas High Court Decides When Insurers’ Duty To Defend Is Triggered
By Tory F. Taylor, a partner, and Joshua C. Anderson, an associate, both with the Houston law firm Ebanks, Taylor and Horne, LLP.
Legal Backgrounder, December 12, 2008, 4 pages
Download PDF of the Publication
|
|
|
