Expert Analysis

• Opinion

  Why Supreme Court Should Allow Repatriation Tax To Stand

  If the U.S. Supreme Court doesn't reject the taxpayers' misguided claims in Moore v. U.S. that the mandatory repatriation tax is unconstitutional, it could wreak havoc on our system of taxation and result in a catastrophic loss of revenue for the government, say Christina Mason and Theresa Balducci at Herrick Feinstein.

• For Lawyers, Pessimism Should Be A Job Skill, Not A Life Skill

  

  A pessimistic mindset allows attorneys to be effective advocates for their clients, but it can come with serious costs for their personal well-being, so it’s crucial to exercise strategies that produce flexible optimism and connect lawyers with their core values, says Krista Larson at Stinson.

• High Court's Jan. 6 Rioter Case May Have Wide Ripple Effects

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court will soon hear oral arguments in Fischer v. United States, a case that will determine whether a law enacted after the Enron scandal can be used to prosecute Jan. 6 rioters, and could affect the government’s ability to charge those who impede a range of official proceedings, say Brook Dooley and Sara Fitzpatrick at Keker Van Nest.

• 5th Circ. Clarifies What Is And Isn't A 'New Use' Of PFAS

  

  The Fifth Circuit's March 21 decision in Inhance Technologies v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, preventing the EPA from regulating existing uses of PFAS under "significant new use" provisions of the Toxic Substances Control Act, provides industry with much-needed clarity, say Joseph Schaeffer and Sloane Wildman at Babst Calland.

• CORRECTED: Endoscope Patent Case Offers Guidance On Right To Repair

  

  An Alabama federal court's decision in Karl Storz v. IMS reaffirmed that product owners have broad rights to repair or modify their property as they see fit, highlighting the parameters of the right to repair in the context of patent infringement, say Dustin Weeks and Dabney Carr at Troutman Pepper. Correction: Due to an editing error, a previous version of this article and headline attributed the Karl Storz ruling to the wrong court. The error has been corrected.

• Trump's NY Civil Fraud Trial Spotlights Long-Criticized Law

  

  A New York court’s recent decision holding former President Donald Trump liable for fraud brought old criticisms of the state law used against him back into the limelight — including its strikingly broad scope and its major departures from the traditional elements of common law fraud, say Mark Kelley and Lois Ahn at MoloLamken.

• How A Motion Before Justices May Help Trump Beyond Court

  

  Even if Donald Trump loses his presidential immunity claim before the U.S. Supreme Court, the delay created by the motion may mean a trial can't be completed before the November election, says Paul Tuchmann at Wiggin and Dana.

• Opinion

  $175M Bond Refiled By Trump Is Still Substantively Flawed

  

  The corrected $175 million bond posted by former President Donald Trump on Thursday to stave off enforcement of the New York attorney general's fraud judgment against him remains substantively and procedurally flawed, as well as inadequately secured, says Adam Pollock of Pollock Cohen.

• Opinion

  Requiring Leave To File Amicus Briefs Is A Bad Idea

  

  A proposal to amend the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure that would require parties to get court permission before filing federal amicus briefs would eliminate the long-standing practice of consent filing and thereby make the process less open and democratic, says Lawrence Ebner at the Atlantic Legal Foundation and DRI Center.

• NJ Ruling Offers Road Map To Fight Dishonored Check Claims

  

  As ATM and mobile check deposits become more common, a New Jersey state appellate court’s recent ruling in Triffin v. Neptune shows that issuers can rely on copies of checks to defend against claims that checks were wrongfully dishonored after being electronically deposited, say attorneys at Sherman Atlas.

• 4 Ways To Motivate Junior Attorneys To Bring Their Best

  

  As Gen Z and younger millennial attorneys increasingly express dissatisfaction with their work and head for the exits, the lawyers who manage them must understand and attend to their needs and priorities to boost engagement and increase retention, says Stacey Schwartz at Katten.

• A Look At Recent Challenges To SEC's Settlement 'Gag Rule'

  

  Though they have been unsuccessful so far, opponents of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission's so-called gag rule, which prevents defendants from denying allegations when settling with the SEC, are becoming increasingly vocal and filing more challenges in recent years, say Mike Blankenship and Regina Maze at Winston & Strawn.

• How 3 Unfolding Cases Could Affect The Energy Industry

  

  Three judicial decisions now in the pipeline — Texas' challenge to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's methane regulations, Delaware's climate suit against big energy companies, and a case before the Supreme Court of Texas on royalty lease interpretation — could have important implications for the energy industry, say Michelle Scheffler and Rachael Cox at Skadden.

• Conn. Bankruptcy Ruling Furthers Limitation Extension Split

  

  A recent Connecticut bankruptcy court decision further solidifies a split of authority on whether Bankruptcy Rule 9006(b) may be used to extend the limitations period, meaning practitioners seeking to extend should serve the motion on all applicable parties and, where possible, rely on the doctrine of equitable tolling, says Shane Ramsey at Nelson Mullins.

• How Purdue Pharma High Court Case May Change Bankruptcy

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court’s upcoming ruling in Purdue Pharma may be the death of most third-party releases in Chapter 11 cases, and depending on the decision’s breadth, could have much more far-reaching effects on the entire bankruptcy system, say Brian Shaw and David Doyle at Cozen O'Connor.