HB Litigation News

Category: Mass Torts

  • Progress of Roundup Settlement in Question, Verus Reports

    Progress of Roundup Settlement in Question, Verus Reports

    By Kim Lavin

    Manager of Research Services
    Verus LLC
    klavin@verusllc.com
    609-466-0427

    Progress of Roundup Settlement in Question

    Judge Would Likely Not Have Agreed to a Stay Had He Known About the Contingency

    On August 27, plaintiffs’ counsel in the multi-district litigation involving Monsanto and its widely used weed killer Roundup, advised the court that parent company Bayer AG appeared to be going back on the settlement agreement announced in June. At that time, the company had agreed to settle about 75% of the 125,000 claims filed by plaintiffs alleging that their non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma was linked to Roundup use; the settlement was for an estimated $10 billion.

    At the hearing, Judge Vince Chhabria advised that he had received confidential letters from a number of plaintiffs’ counsel with cases pending in the MDL who were concerned that Bayer AG was going back on the settlement, noting that the company had terminated settlement term sheets and refused to execute master service agreements that would finalize their settlements; Bayer conceded that there were currently no final agreements.

    Bayer did advise Judge Chhabria that about 667 of the cases currently pending in the MDL had been resolved, a figure that the judge noted was only a fraction of the 4,000 currently filed.  The judge also pointed to Bayer’s June 24 announcement of the settlement, stating that he had taken “all of that to mean the MDL is settled.”  He indicated that he would likely not have agreed to a 60-day stay of the litigation had he known that the larger settlement was contingent on his approval of a separate class action settlement for $1.25 billion, designed to resolve any future Roundup cases.  The judge then advised the parties that although he would not lift the current stay, he would not extend it, expressing concerns that it was being used by the parties to manipulate the settlement talks.

    Read more at VerusLLC.com.

    Safeguarding Against Financial Exploitation

    An on-demand CLE-eligible webinar Safeguarding Against Financial Exploitation   America’s senior population is growing. Nearly one in five U.S. residents will be 65 or older in 2030. Which means the average age of U.S. investors is climbing too. With that comes the risk that they will be exploited by people with access – or gain access through nefarious methods – to their investment portfolio. Seniors and vulnerable persons lose billions of dollars each year. Remarkably, 90% of the people to take advantage of senior investors are members of their own family. Attorneys who represent senior clients need to know the signs of vulnerability, red flags that their clients are being exploited, what laws apply, and rules lawyers must follow in these matters.   Questions our speakers answer: What is senior / vulnerable investor exploitation?   Who is protected by state and federal laws?   How prevalent is senior financial exploitation? What do the numbers tell us?  What is the pace of financial abuse SAR filings by securities firms?  What are the most popular scams?   What is diminished capacity?  What are the red flags indicating possible exploitation?  What are the laws, rules, and regulations governing law firms?  What are some best practices for law firms?  How can firms best protect their senior clients?   On Demand CLE Webinar What You Get PowerPoint and supplemental materials. Complete recording for later review. Answers to your questions via email. Invitation to contact speakers. 1.5 CLE credits (for licensed attorneys). CLE assistance.* *Subject to state bar rules. For licensed attorneys.  Register Meet the Speakers Joseph Calabrese Bressler, Amery & Ross, P.C. A 1991 Graduate of St. John’s University Law School, Mr. Calabrese brings 30 years of practice and 18 years of Securities Litigation/Regulatory experience to his role as principal in the New York office of  Bressler, Amery & Ross’s Financial Institutions Group. He began his career as a Wall Street litigator as an associate general counsel for Citigroup’s Smith Barney and […]

    Lien Resolution: Government & Private Plans Get Aggressive (Against Attorneys)

    Includes Nearly 75 minutes of insights from experienced professionals. CLE credit: 1+ (subject to bar rules). For CLE questions: CLE@LitigationConference.com The complete Power Point presentation. Continued access to the complete recording for later use. Answers to your questions via email to the presenters or write to HB and we will be sure to contact the speakers. What can you do to settle personal injury suits cleanly and avoid costly litigation and penalties? What recent cases can inform you about protecting your settlements and, as attorneys, yourselves, from post-settlement federal lawsuits? How can your firm set itself up to meet government expectations? What role might experts play in navigating these pitfalls? Medicare Advantage (42 USC § 1395w-22) Federal Medical Care Recovery Act (FMCRA) (42 USC § 2651) Armed Forces Act (10 USC §1095) Veterans’ Benefits (38 USC §1729) Third-Party Collection Rules (32 CFR 537.24; 38 CFR 17.101, etc.) Set-Asides under the Medicare Secondary Payer Act (42 USC § 1395y(b)(2)] On Demand Registration Lien Resolution Government & Private Plans Get Aggressive (Against Attorneys!) On Demand | Recorded September 2020 It is increasingly common these days. Personal injury attorneys settle a case, only to find themselves sued by a U.S. Attorney for failing to reimburse Medicare for conditional payments as required by the Medicare Secondary Payer Act. In some cases the attorney may be required to pay fines in addition to the reimbursements and interest, a costly proposition. Are you up to speed on issues surrounding Medicare Advantage, TRICARE, veterans’ claims, and Medicare set-asides? Join nationally recognized healthcare lien and resolution expert Franklin P. Solomon and go-to lien resolution provider Brett Newman as they offer a practical, in-depth CLE presentation. Franklin P. Solomon, Esq. Attorney & Founder, Solomon Law Firm  A graduate of Rutgers University School of Law at Camden, Franklin Solomon is based in Cherry Hill, NJ, with a practice focused on evaluation, litigation and resolution of healthcare “liens” and reimbursement claims. Mr. Solomon represents personal injury victims and their attorneys […]

    Telepsychiatry: Mitigating the Risks

    REGISTER Registration Includes Nearly 90 minutes of insights from experienced professionals. CLE credit: 1+ (subject to bar rules). For CLE questions: CLE@LitigationConference.com The complete Power Point presentation. Continued access to the complete recording for later use. Answers to your questions via email to the presenters or write to HB and we will be sure to contact the speakers. Understand the risks associated with telepsychiatry and how to manage them.  Telemedicine has emerged as an important solution for healthcare in general and psychiatric medicine specifically during the current global pandemic. Remote access for sub-practices including addiction counseling have been commonly used. Our panel of psychiatric professionals who have served as expert witnesses and attorneys who counsel and represent physicians have prepared a 90-minute session to share insights with attorneys, physicians, healthcare providers, risk professionals, and more. Agenda Examining procedures and best practices that exist for ensuring confidentiality in a telemedicine practice How do you draft a telepsychiatric consent form? What is the emerging standard of care for telemedicine? Will the standard of care for telemedicine become a national standard? (Should it?) Review the case law addressing telemedicine or telepsychiatry How do the HIPAA regulations and HITECH privacy laws impact telemedicine? How have the HIPAA regulations and HITECH privacy laws been relaxed during the pandemic? Will the relaxed HIPAA and HITECH regulations impacting telemedicine continue past the pandemic? Which technical platforms are preferred? Which ones to avoid? Panelists Mark Levy, M.D., Medical Director at fpamed David Kan, M.D., UCSF Psychiatry Department and the California Society for Substance Abuse Medicine Ayesha Ashai, M.D., associated with fpamed Stephen M. Fatum, J.D., Partner, Barnes & Thornburg LLP Angela W. Russell, J.D., Partner, Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP Meet our physician and attorney panelists. Mark Levy MD Medical Director fpamed Dr. Levy is a graduate of Columbia College (A.B. 1967) and the Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons (M.D. 1971) in New York. He is a Physician […]

    The Commercial Drone Industry: Privacy, Security, Threats, and Mitigation of Risk

    HB presents a CLE-eligible webinar Now on-demand at the West LegalEdcenter THE COMMERCIAL DRONE INDUSTRY Privacy, Security, Threats, and Mitigation of Risk Drones have become an increasingly valuable tool for businesses of all types and sizes. Drones are already being used in many applications, but more will certainly arise as the technology advances. This means that certain risks, like cyber threats, will also continue to present themselves. Protecting the transmission and storage of data collected through drones is critical. Unfortunately, security usually comes as an afterthought. The drone industry is part of the aviation industry, which, based on its knowledge, keeps safety as a number one concern. Part of that safety is having proper protection for your systems, including security as a fundamental design principle. Take this webinar to gain insights on the topics listed below, and shared by an attorney who practices on the cutting-edge of this evolving technology. Topics: Defining drones. Current and future applications. FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012. FAA Part 107 Regulations and waivers. Resources, e.g. the FAA Drone Zone and LAANC Portal. Penalties for violations. Privacy implications. Drones as weapons. Vulnerability to cyber attacks. Take it now! What you get: 1+ CLE credits (subject to bar rules). Insights from an experienced professional who specializes in this area of the law. The complete PowerPoint presentation. Continued access to the complete recording for later use. Answers to your questions. Fee: No additional charge to subscribers to the West LegalEdcenter. Non-subscribers may take the course for $170. Meet the Speaker Kathryn Rattigan Robinson & Cole LLP Kathryn Rattigan is a member of the firm’s Business Litigation Group and Data Privacy + Cybersecurity Team. She advises clients on data privacy and security, cybersecurity, and compliance with related state and federal laws. She assists clients in assessing risks related to technology and software contracts, as well as with compliance-related issues with outsourcing and […]

    The Intersection of Privacy and Antitrust Webinar Now Available On-Demand on the West LegalEdcenter

    Available as part of your subscription to The Thomson Reuters West LegalEdcenter®. Don’t subscribe to the West LegalEdcenter? This webinar is still available directly from HB. Take it now! Questions for speakers Questions@LitigationConferences.com CLE questions CLE@LitigationConferences.com Check out the MoginRubin blog for more insights on antitrust and privacy law. What attorneys and companies need to know about the increasing interplay between these critical areas of the law.  Highly publicized cases and investigations in the U.S. and Europe of big technology, e-commerce, and social media companies demonstrate how anti-competition laws are being used to scrutinize and challenge not only how these corporations conduct themselves in the marketplace, but the very core of their colossal success: the mass collection and utilization of user data. Are the privacy and antitrust worlds beginning to cross over? Or do they simply run parallel while addressing entirely different types of conduct? Whatever the answer, data is the raw material that drives the likes of Google, Facebook, Apple and Amazon, so how it is handled is a critical question when counseling clients on mergers and acquisitions. Moderator Daniel J.  Mogin | Managing Partner, MoginRubin LLP Speakers Jennifer M. Oliver, CIPP/US | Partner, MoginRubin LLP Thomas N. Dahdouh | Director, Western Region, Federal Trade Commission Franklin M. Rubinstein | Partner, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati Randi W. Singer, CIPP/US, CIPT | Partner, Weil, Gotshal & Manges Contributor Dina Srinivasan | Independent Researcher & Author of The Antitrust Case Against Facebook Dina was unable to present but we thank her for her content contributions.  Agenda Who should regulate privacy violations in the U.S.? Which antitrust issues implicate privacy concerns? What role does machine learning play on the competitive landscape? What is big data really? How is it different from “data”? What are the elements of effective merger reviews? What are the appropriate remedies? What are “notice-and-choice” versus “harms-based” approaches? Plus answers to your questions. Send them to Questions@LitigationConferences.com.

  • NJ Judge Overstepped in Striking Talc Plaintiff Experts, Verus Reports

    NJ Judge Overstepped in Striking Talc Plaintiff Experts, Verus Reports

    By Kim Lavin

    Manager of Research Services
    Verus LLC
    klavin@verusllc.com
    609-466-0427

    Judge Abused Discretion in Striking Expert Evidence, NJ Appellate Court Finds

    Reverses 2016 Summary Judgment in Ovarian Cancer Cases

    On August 5, a three judge panel from the New Jersey state appeals court reversed a 2016 summary judgment granted in favor of defendants, talc manufacturer Johnson & Johnson and talc miner Imerys Talc America in cases brought by two women who allege J&J’s talc products caused their ovarian cancer.

    In its opinion, the panel ruled that Atlantic County Superior Court Judge Nelson C. Johnson abused his discretion by serving as the fact finder in deciding the credibility of the plaintiffs’ experts’ opinions instead of merely assessing whether the doctors’ opinions were based on sound scientific methodology. The trial judge acknowledged that the experts, Dr. Graham Colditz and Dr. Daniel Cramer, were qualified but opined that their scientific studies and evidence were narrow and shallow, showing a preference for cohort studies and their larger sample sizes over the case studies relied on by the experts.  In overturning the ruling by the trial court and discussing the studies cited by Colditz and Cramer, the appeals court stated that those studies satisfied the criteria outlined in the Federal Judicial Center’s Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence and also noted that size and the types of study are not the sole determinants of reliability.

    As a result of the plaintiffs’ experts’ testimony being reinstated, a dispute over a material fact exists in the matter and the case will proceed.

    The two cases, brought by plaintiffs Brandi Carl and Diana Balderrama, were the first two to be tried from the group of 100 lawsuits included in New Jersey’s multi-county litigation.

    Safeguarding Against Financial Exploitation

    An on-demand CLE-eligible webinar Safeguarding Against Financial Exploitation   America’s senior population is growing. Nearly one in five U.S. residents will be 65 or older in 2030. Which means the average age of U.S. investors is climbing too. With that comes the risk that they will be exploited by people with access – or gain access through nefarious methods – to their investment portfolio. Seniors and vulnerable persons lose billions of dollars each year. Remarkably, 90% of the people to take advantage of senior investors are members of their own family. Attorneys who represent senior clients need to know the signs of vulnerability, red flags that their clients are being exploited, what laws apply, and rules lawyers must follow in these matters.   Questions our speakers answer: What is senior / vulnerable investor exploitation?   Who is protected by state and federal laws?   How prevalent is senior financial exploitation? What do the numbers tell us?  What is the pace of financial abuse SAR filings by securities firms?  What are the most popular scams?   What is diminished capacity?  What are the red flags indicating possible exploitation?  What are the laws, rules, and regulations governing law firms?  What are some best practices for law firms?  How can firms best protect their senior clients?   On Demand CLE Webinar What You Get PowerPoint and supplemental materials. Complete recording for later review. Answers to your questions via email. Invitation to contact speakers. 1.5 CLE credits (for licensed attorneys). CLE assistance.* *Subject to state bar rules. For licensed attorneys.  Register Meet the Speakers Joseph Calabrese Bressler, Amery & Ross, P.C. A 1991 Graduate of St. John’s University Law School, Mr. Calabrese brings 30 years of practice and 18 years of Securities Litigation/Regulatory experience to his role as principal in the New York office of  Bressler, Amery & Ross’s Financial Institutions Group. He began his career as a Wall Street litigator as an associate general counsel for Citigroup’s Smith Barney and […]

    Lien Resolution: Government & Private Plans Get Aggressive (Against Attorneys)

    Includes Nearly 75 minutes of insights from experienced professionals. CLE credit: 1+ (subject to bar rules). For CLE questions: CLE@LitigationConference.com The complete Power Point presentation. Continued access to the complete recording for later use. Answers to your questions via email to the presenters or write to HB and we will be sure to contact the speakers. What can you do to settle personal injury suits cleanly and avoid costly litigation and penalties? What recent cases can inform you about protecting your settlements and, as attorneys, yourselves, from post-settlement federal lawsuits? How can your firm set itself up to meet government expectations? What role might experts play in navigating these pitfalls? Medicare Advantage (42 USC § 1395w-22) Federal Medical Care Recovery Act (FMCRA) (42 USC § 2651) Armed Forces Act (10 USC §1095) Veterans’ Benefits (38 USC §1729) Third-Party Collection Rules (32 CFR 537.24; 38 CFR 17.101, etc.) Set-Asides under the Medicare Secondary Payer Act (42 USC § 1395y(b)(2)] On Demand Registration Lien Resolution Government & Private Plans Get Aggressive (Against Attorneys!) On Demand | Recorded September 2020 It is increasingly common these days. Personal injury attorneys settle a case, only to find themselves sued by a U.S. Attorney for failing to reimburse Medicare for conditional payments as required by the Medicare Secondary Payer Act. In some cases the attorney may be required to pay fines in addition to the reimbursements and interest, a costly proposition. Are you up to speed on issues surrounding Medicare Advantage, TRICARE, veterans’ claims, and Medicare set-asides? Join nationally recognized healthcare lien and resolution expert Franklin P. Solomon and go-to lien resolution provider Brett Newman as they offer a practical, in-depth CLE presentation. Franklin P. Solomon, Esq. Attorney & Founder, Solomon Law Firm  A graduate of Rutgers University School of Law at Camden, Franklin Solomon is based in Cherry Hill, NJ, with a practice focused on evaluation, litigation and resolution of healthcare “liens” and reimbursement claims. Mr. Solomon represents personal injury victims and their attorneys […]

    Telepsychiatry: Mitigating the Risks

    REGISTER Registration Includes Nearly 90 minutes of insights from experienced professionals. CLE credit: 1+ (subject to bar rules). For CLE questions: CLE@LitigationConference.com The complete Power Point presentation. Continued access to the complete recording for later use. Answers to your questions via email to the presenters or write to HB and we will be sure to contact the speakers. Understand the risks associated with telepsychiatry and how to manage them.  Telemedicine has emerged as an important solution for healthcare in general and psychiatric medicine specifically during the current global pandemic. Remote access for sub-practices including addiction counseling have been commonly used. Our panel of psychiatric professionals who have served as expert witnesses and attorneys who counsel and represent physicians have prepared a 90-minute session to share insights with attorneys, physicians, healthcare providers, risk professionals, and more. Agenda Examining procedures and best practices that exist for ensuring confidentiality in a telemedicine practice How do you draft a telepsychiatric consent form? What is the emerging standard of care for telemedicine? Will the standard of care for telemedicine become a national standard? (Should it?) Review the case law addressing telemedicine or telepsychiatry How do the HIPAA regulations and HITECH privacy laws impact telemedicine? How have the HIPAA regulations and HITECH privacy laws been relaxed during the pandemic? Will the relaxed HIPAA and HITECH regulations impacting telemedicine continue past the pandemic? Which technical platforms are preferred? Which ones to avoid? Panelists Mark Levy, M.D., Medical Director at fpamed David Kan, M.D., UCSF Psychiatry Department and the California Society for Substance Abuse Medicine Ayesha Ashai, M.D., associated with fpamed Stephen M. Fatum, J.D., Partner, Barnes & Thornburg LLP Angela W. Russell, J.D., Partner, Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP Meet our physician and attorney panelists. Mark Levy MD Medical Director fpamed Dr. Levy is a graduate of Columbia College (A.B. 1967) and the Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons (M.D. 1971) in New York. He is a Physician […]

    The Commercial Drone Industry: Privacy, Security, Threats, and Mitigation of Risk

    HB presents a CLE-eligible webinar Now on-demand at the West LegalEdcenter THE COMMERCIAL DRONE INDUSTRY Privacy, Security, Threats, and Mitigation of Risk Drones have become an increasingly valuable tool for businesses of all types and sizes. Drones are already being used in many applications, but more will certainly arise as the technology advances. This means that certain risks, like cyber threats, will also continue to present themselves. Protecting the transmission and storage of data collected through drones is critical. Unfortunately, security usually comes as an afterthought. The drone industry is part of the aviation industry, which, based on its knowledge, keeps safety as a number one concern. Part of that safety is having proper protection for your systems, including security as a fundamental design principle. Take this webinar to gain insights on the topics listed below, and shared by an attorney who practices on the cutting-edge of this evolving technology. Topics: Defining drones. Current and future applications. FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012. FAA Part 107 Regulations and waivers. Resources, e.g. the FAA Drone Zone and LAANC Portal. Penalties for violations. Privacy implications. Drones as weapons. Vulnerability to cyber attacks. Take it now! What you get: 1+ CLE credits (subject to bar rules). Insights from an experienced professional who specializes in this area of the law. The complete PowerPoint presentation. Continued access to the complete recording for later use. Answers to your questions. Fee: No additional charge to subscribers to the West LegalEdcenter. Non-subscribers may take the course for $170. Meet the Speaker Kathryn Rattigan Robinson & Cole LLP Kathryn Rattigan is a member of the firm’s Business Litigation Group and Data Privacy + Cybersecurity Team. She advises clients on data privacy and security, cybersecurity, and compliance with related state and federal laws. She assists clients in assessing risks related to technology and software contracts, as well as with compliance-related issues with outsourcing and […]

    The Intersection of Privacy and Antitrust Webinar Now Available On-Demand on the West LegalEdcenter

    Available as part of your subscription to The Thomson Reuters West LegalEdcenter®. Don’t subscribe to the West LegalEdcenter? This webinar is still available directly from HB. Take it now! Questions for speakers Questions@LitigationConferences.com CLE questions CLE@LitigationConferences.com Check out the MoginRubin blog for more insights on antitrust and privacy law. What attorneys and companies need to know about the increasing interplay between these critical areas of the law.  Highly publicized cases and investigations in the U.S. and Europe of big technology, e-commerce, and social media companies demonstrate how anti-competition laws are being used to scrutinize and challenge not only how these corporations conduct themselves in the marketplace, but the very core of their colossal success: the mass collection and utilization of user data. Are the privacy and antitrust worlds beginning to cross over? Or do they simply run parallel while addressing entirely different types of conduct? Whatever the answer, data is the raw material that drives the likes of Google, Facebook, Apple and Amazon, so how it is handled is a critical question when counseling clients on mergers and acquisitions. Moderator Daniel J.  Mogin | Managing Partner, MoginRubin LLP Speakers Jennifer M. Oliver, CIPP/US | Partner, MoginRubin LLP Thomas N. Dahdouh | Director, Western Region, Federal Trade Commission Franklin M. Rubinstein | Partner, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati Randi W. Singer, CIPP/US, CIPT | Partner, Weil, Gotshal & Manges Contributor Dina Srinivasan | Independent Researcher & Author of The Antitrust Case Against Facebook Dina was unable to present but we thank her for her content contributions.  Agenda Who should regulate privacy violations in the U.S.? Which antitrust issues implicate privacy concerns? What role does machine learning play on the competitive landscape? What is big data really? How is it different from “data”? What are the elements of effective merger reviews? What are the appropriate remedies? What are “notice-and-choice” versus “harms-based” approaches? Plus answers to your questions. Send them to Questions@LitigationConferences.com.

  • Organizational Values & Business Risks: Properly Balancing Stakeholder Concerns

    Organizational Values & Business Risks: Properly Balancing Stakeholder Concerns

    Topics Covered

    Accommodations. Appropriate accommodation for high-risk employees or employees with family members who are at a heightened risk.

    Mitigation. Attention to means of mitigating transmission and infection.

    Tracing. Contact tracing and management of data collected, including health data, as well as responses to employees who refuse to report.

    Patient Sensitivity. Duty to avoid discrimination and stigmatization.

    Preparedness. Developing plans to address possibility of re-occurrence in the fall and managing possible outbreaks in company’s offices.

    Take it now

    On-demand on the Thomson Reuters West LegalEdcenter as part of the HB catalog.

    Register now!

    Organizational Values & Coronavirus Business Risks:
    Properly Balancing Stakeholder Concerns

    Produced for Emory University Center for Ethics by HB Litigation Conferences

    The current pandemic confronts businesses, nonprofit organizations, governments, and the legal profession with innumerable ethical challenges.  Management issues and liability concerns, stakeholder demands and legal duties become even more complex in an environment of uncertainty and one where the consequences could result in serious illness or even death.  This program seeks to engage the participants in thinking through these challenges and developing processes of ethical response to them.  Managers must acknowledge and address the framework of fear associated with the pandemic, ranging from fear of contagion and death to fears of unemployment, childcare, and the duties of home-schooling.  Additionally, as the economy reopens there must be serious attention to the processes of doing so.

    Join Professor Edward L. Queen from Emory University for invaluable insights. Emory’s medical team was on the frontline of the 2014-2016 Ebola epidemic, which began in December 2013 when an 18-month-old Guinean boy contracted the disease. According to the CDC, the outbreak ended with more than 28,600 cases and 11,325 deaths. Eleven people were treated for Ebola in the United States.

    Edward L. Queen
    Director of Ethics and Servant Leadership
    Emory University

    Professor Queen Coronavirus-Ethical-Issues-Litigation Conferences-June-19-2020-

    Professor Edward L. Queen

    Edward L. Queen is director of the D. Abbott Turner Program in Ethics and Servant Leadership and Coordinator of Undergraduate Studies at Emory University’s Center for Ethics.  At Emory he also serves as Director of Research for the Institute of Human Rights and co-convener of the Initiative on Religion, Conflict, and Peacebuilding.  Queen received his B.A. from Birmingham-Southern College, his M.A. and Ph.D. degrees from the Divinity School of the University of Chicago, and his J.D. from the Indiana University School of Law-Indianapolis. Queen’s previously served as founding director of the Religion and Philanthropy Project at the Indiana University Center on Philanthropy and of the Islamic Society of North America’s Fellowship Program in Nonprofit Management and Governance.  A former program officer at Lilly Endowment, Inc. with a major responsibility for grants in nonprofit governance and leadership, Queen has consulted with numerous nonprofit, governmental, and educational organizations on management issues and ethics policies.  These organizations have included the Helsinki Committee for Human Rights, the Pew Charitable Trusts, Independent Sector, USAID, NAFSA: The Association of International Educators, the Southeastern Council of Foundations, and the Corporation for National and Community Service.

    A specialist in issues related to professional and social ethics, religious and ethnic conflict, and civil society, Queen has written, coauthored, or edited numerous books, including Serving Those In Need: A Handbook for Managing Faith-Based Human Services Organizations (2000), Philanthropy in the World’s Traditions (1998), and The Encyclopedia of American Religious History (1992, rev. ed. 2002, 3rd rev. ed. 2009).

  • The Dark Net: Anonymity, Infrastructure, and the Future

    The Dark Net: Anonymity, Infrastructure, and the Future

    Register

    Webinar Info

    Wednesday, Aug. 5, 2020

    United States
    8am PT | 10am CT | 11am ET

    United Kingdom
    4pm BST

    Get CLE or CPE, a complete set of materials, and answers to your questions!

    Email us your:
    Speaker questions
    CLE questions

    Topics Covered

    Physical and Logical Topology and Method of Data Transmission

    Using the Dark Net for Threat Hunting

    Hacking Groups and Malicious Hackers  

    The Future of The Dark Net and Anonymity

    The Dark Net: Anonymity, Infrastructure, and the Future
    Is the Dark Web Getting Darker? 

    Wed., Aug. 5, 2020 | Produced for Access Data by HB Litigation Conferences

    The web, however singular it may seem from behind an everyday user’s computer or smartphone screen, comprises three distinctive parts: the public net (or web), the deep net, and the dark net. Though the dark net contains some innocuous content and is used for legitimate purposes, it also operates as a platform for illegal marketplaces. These offer almost anything a criminal or cybercriminal might want to buy or sell like malware, exploits, hackers-for-hire, information lifted from data breaches, censored content, and goods like drugs, guns, and other contraband.

    Observers report that the dark web is getting darker, meaning hardcore criminals make up a greater percentage of its user base. Exploits and other hacking tools and techniques used to disrupt business, critical infrastructure, and misappropriate confidential information are continually diversifying and becoming more complex. According to Cyber Defense Magazine, the annual cost of cybercrime damages to users, online businesses, and nations is expected to hit $5 trillion this year, with some estimates ranging as high as $10 trillion.

    Join two highly experienced data security professionals – Mary T. Frantz of Enterprise Knowledge Partners and Frank Krahn of Burdock Consulting – as they discuss how cybercrime fighters must overcome a variety of challenges as they threat-hunt on the dark net: detecting, monitoring, and gathering intelligence on cybercrimes and the actors behind them. Frantz and Krahn will discuss how the cybersecurity community will address emerging threats, what changes the web may undergo as a result, and more. The session will be moderated by the head of international training at AccessData, Sarah Hargreaves, who brings her own experience in forensics to the discussion.

    Meet our panelists.


    Frank Krahn
    Co-Founder, Burdock Consulting, LLC

    Before co-founding Burdock Consulting, Frank had a long tenure with the Mayo Clinic, where he served as the Director of Operational Risk Management. He holds various specialist certificates in information security and computer crime investigation and forensics. Frank has taught classes and consulted for law enforcement agencies on computer crime-related matters, and has worked with the FBI. He is also an e-discovery specialist.


    Mary T. Frantz
    Founder & Managing Partner, Enterprise Knowledge Partners, LLC

    Mary is a technology and strategy professional with more than 25 years’ experience as a corporate and consulting firm executive. Her expertise includes IT strategy, e-discovery, compliance, enterprise risk, information security, and enterprise architecture. Mary has served as a legal expert on a variety of cyber security topics. She is also an author, keynote speaker, and adjunct professor.


    moderator
    Sarah Hargreaves ACI, ACE
    Director of Training – International
    AccessData, United Kingdom

    Sarah started her career in digital forensics in 2003.  Previously working in a criminal law practice, Sarah moved over to forensics after working on a number of investigations which inspired her to change career path.  Her journey continued with a number of roles in Digital Forensic Laboratories, primarily supporting law enforcement in Child Sexual Exploitation investigation and general crime.  Sarah progressed to Laboratory Management and later into Training Management.

    Sarah is experienced in digital investigation, laboratory management, ISO17025 and evidential process.

    Sarah lives in the North West of England and is a mum to two young children.  She enjoys days out with her family and traveling.

  • Monsanto, Bayer Paying Billions for PCB Cleanups

    Monsanto, Bayer Paying Billions for PCB Cleanups

    Roundup Weed Killer

    Read Baltimore Sun environmental writer Scott Dance’s June 24, 2020, article titled, “A $550M national class-action settlement includes money for cleanup of PCBs in Baltimore waterways.” He offers the Maryland angle on the $550 million class action settlement between Monsanto and 13 government agencies across the U.S., just part of a much larger agreement.

    “The settlement was one of several that Monsanto’s owner, German pharmaceutical company Bayer, announced Wednesday. Bayer said it’s paying up to $10.9 billion to settle current and potential future litigation over Monsanto’s weedkiller Roundup, which has faced numerous lawsuits over claims it causes cancer, and $1.22 billion to settle two further cases, including the class action focused on PCBs.”

    Dance writes that the terms of this settlement are off to Judge Fernando M. Olquin of the Central District of California for his review. Judge Olquin was one of the presenters on multiple panels at the Class Action Law Forum presented by Western Alliance Bank and produced by my team at HB. Kenneth R. Feinberg, also a presenter, is the court-appointed special master in the case.

    The Baltimore Sun piece was one of many that gave the local perspective on this nationwide litigation and settlement in progress, like this one from the San Francisco Chronicle, with a Seattle dateline, and this one from the Washington State Wire quoting the state’s AG, and this one from the Portland Tribune, with a take on the Oregon impact. And law firms, which stand to gain a great deal in attorney fees issued announcements of their part in the deal, like this one from Baron & Budd. It doesn’t appear the leading defense firm, Skadden Arps, issued a separate statement, but joined in the Bayer announcement. It quoted the firm’s John Beisner, “a consultant to Bayer’s Supervisory Board and a mass tort expert,” as saying, “Taking account of various options, I am convinced this plan provides a comprehensive, reasonable solution to the complex, contested issues presented by this litigation.”

    Bayer’s announcement from Leverkusen, Germany, basically said it was the right thing to do, but that it admits to no wrong-doing.

    “Bayer announced today a series of agreements that will substantially resolve major outstanding Monsanto litigation, including U.S. Roundup™ product liability litigation, dicamba drift litigation and PCB water litigation. The main feature is the U.S. Roundup™ resolution that will bring closure to approximately 75% of the current Roundup™ litigation involving approximately 125,000 filed and unfiled claims overall. The resolved claims include all plaintiff law firms leading the Roundup™ federal multi-district litigation (MDL) or the California bellwether cases, and those representing approximately 95% of the cases currently set for trial, and establish key values and parameters to guide the resolution of the remainder of the claims as negotiations advance. The resolution also puts in place a mechanism to resolve potential future claims efficiently. The company will make a payment of $8.8 billion to $9.6 billion to resolve the current Roundup™ litigation, including an allowance expected to cover unresolved claims, and $1.25 billion to support a separate class agreement to address potential future litigation. The Roundup™ class agreement will be subject to approval by Judge Vince Chhabria of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The resolutions were approved unanimously by Bayer’s Board of Management and Supervisory Board with input from its Special Litigation Committee. The agreements contain no admission of liability or wrongdoing.”

    The company said it can now get on with tackling global challenges, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, and generally “improv[ing] quality of life for a growing and aging population of an estimated 10 billion people by 2050.”

  • The Intersection of Antitrust & Privacy | A MoginRubin Webinar | 10.31.2019

    The Intersection of Antitrust & Privacy Law

    [two-fifths-first] Recorded: Oct. 31, 2019
    Duration: 100 minutes
    Presented by:  MoginRubin LLP
    Produced by: HB Litigation Conferences

    The Panel

    Moderator
    Daniel J.  Mogin | Managing Partner, MoginRubin LLP

    Speakers
    Jennifer M. Oliver, CIPP/US | Partner, MoginRubin LLP
    Thomas N. Dahdouh | Director, Western Region, Federal Trade Commission
    Franklin M. Rubinstein | Partner, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
    Randi W. Singer, CIPP/US, CIPT | Partner, Weil, Gotshal & Manges

    Contributor
    Dina Srinivasan |     Independent Researcher & Author of The Antitrust Case Against Facebook
    Dina was unable to present but we thank her for her content contributions. 

    What you will get:

    • At least 1 hour of CLE credit.
    • Answers to your questions via email.
    • The opportunity to share with others on your team.
    • The complete Powerpoint.
    • The Antitrust Case Against Facebook
    • Dina Srinivasan’s statement to the House Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial, and Administrative Law
    • The Chicago Booth School Stigler Center Committee on Digital Platforms Final Report

    Write to us at CLE@LitigationConferences.com to:

    • Ask about CLE
    • Request the materials
    • Send a question for the speakers

    [/two-fifths-first][three-fifths]

    Market Behavior and Data-Driven Market Power

    Highly publicized cases and investigations in the U.S. and Europe of big technology, e-commerce, and social media companies demonstrate how anti-competition laws are being used to scrutinize and challenge not only how these corporations conduct themselves in the marketplace, but the very core of their colossal success: the mass collection and utilization of user data.

    Are the privacy and antitrust worlds beginning to cross over?

    Or do they simply run parallel while addressing entirely different types of conduct? Whatever the answer, data is the raw material that drives the likes of Google, Facebook, Apple and Amazon, so how it is handled is a critical question when counseling clients on mergers and acquisitions.

    Meanwhile, there is increasing pressure on antitrust enforcers to consider privacy issues when conducting merger reviews.

    Antitrust laws allow and require consideration of data collection, handling, and use if there is a risk to fair competition. But are the agencies equipped to analyze the effect of post-merger datasets? Should they examine the privacy ramifications of proposed deals?

    Viewpoints on the overlap between the regimes are wide-ranging and nuanced. In a June speech, DOJ Antitrust Division chief Makan Delrahim said that “by protecting competition we can have an impact on privacy and data protection.” During a 2018 interview, though, FTC commissioner Noah Phillips argued that “privacy law and antitrust law each addresses different harms and vindicates different rights.”

    What does all of this mean to the practitioner or in-house counsel?

    Take this 100-minute webinar now to gain insights from leading experts on these issues, with a balance of perspectives from both the plaintiff and defense bars, academia, and regulatory enforcement.

    Get answers to questions like these:

    • Who should regulate privacy violations in the U.S.?
    • Which antitrust issues implicate privacy concerns?
    • What role does machine learning play on the competitive landscape?
    • What is big data really? How is it different from “data”?
    • What are the elements of effective merger reviews?
    • What are the appropriate remedies?
    • What are “notice-and-choice” versus “harms-based” approaches?
    • And more!

    [/three-fifths]

    Moderator & Speaker

    Daniel J.  Mogin, Managing Partner, MoginRubin LLP. Dan concentrates on antitrust, unfair competition and complex and business litigation. He has been selected as lead or liaison counsel in numerous cases and has also frequently served on Steering and Executive committees charged with overall responsibility for direction of complex Multi-District Litigation and Judicial Council Coordination Proceedings. He has participated in some of the largest antitrust class actions in the United States. Dan is frequently invited to participate in these cases by other law firms and often consults with law firms engaged in antitrust cases. He has also provided expert testimony in cases and before the California State Senate Judiciary Committee. Dan received his B.A. in Economics from Indiana University and his J.D. from the University of San Diego.

    Speakers

    Jennifer M. Oliver, CIPP/US, Partner, MoginRubin LLP.  Jennifer joined MoginRubin LLP in 2017 after nearly ten years as a complex business litigator in New York City. She focuses on antitrust, as well as complex business and investment litigation.  Jennifer is a member of the California Lawyer’s Association’s Privacy subcommittee and of the International Association of Privacy Professionals (IAPP), and is an IAPP Certified Information Privacy Professional. Jennifer has played active roles in high-profile jury trials, served as lead counsel in complex mediations, and argued before both trial and appellate courts. In addition to her merger and cartel work, Jennifer has also advised on antitrust issues in mergers and acquisitions and litigated cases involving trade secrets, RICO conspiracies, securities fraud, unfair trade practices, breaches of contract and privacy cases. She earned her B.S. in Business Administration, M.B.A., and J.D. from the University at Buffalo, each with honors.

    Thomas N. Dahdouh, Director, Western Region, Federal Trade Commission.  Prior to his current position Tom served as Assistant Regional Director for the Western Region.  He worked for 14 years as a staff attorney in the San Francisco office of the FTC, handling consumer protection and antitrust matters.  Previously, he worked at the FTC’s Washington, D.C., headquarters for two commissioners.  He has also served on the Executive Committee of the California State Bar’s Antitrust, UCL and Privacy Section since 2009, most recently serving as its Chair from 2014-2015.  He received his J.D. from Harvard Law School and his B.A. from Yale University.

    Franklin M. Rubinstein, Partner, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati. Franklin is an antitrust partner in the Washington, D.C., office. His practice encompasses a wide variety of antitrust matters, including mergers and acquisitions, investigations by the United States Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission, litigation, criminal investigations, and counseling on issues such as distribution, monopolization, tying, exclusive dealing, price-fixing, and antitrust compliance. Franklin has represented a diverse set of clients in the software, computer hardware, pharmaceutical, medical device, gaming, automobile, natural resource, Internet, and media industries. Education: J.D., University of Chicago Law School; B.A., Swarthmore College.

    Randi W. Singer, CIPP/US, CIPT, Partner, Weil, Gotshal & Manges. Randi has earned the Certified Information Privacy Professional (CIPP/US) and Certified Information Privacy Technologist (CIPT) credentials and regularly advises clients in connection with privacy, cybersecurity, and social media issues in a wide variety of matters, including hundreds of transactions ranging from high-profile deals such as Facebook’s acquisition of Whatsapp, Inc. to large public company mergers and small talent acquisitions. In 2015, The National Law Journal recognized Randi as one of its inaugural “Trailblazers” nationwide for her cutting-edge work in the cybersecurity and data privacy area. 

    Contributor

    Dina Srinivasan, Independent Researcher & Author of The Antitrust Case Against Facebook. Dina currently advises on the economics of digital advertising markets and continues to write about tech and antitrust. She is the author of “The Antitrust Case Against Facebook“, an academic paper published in the Berkeley Business Law Journal (February 2019)  that explains Facebook’s monopoly power under U.S. antitrust law. Her research and commentary on tech and antitrust have been covered or cited by U.S. Congress, The New York Times, Bloomberg, Business Insider, NBC News, the Today Show, and other publications and radio stations, domestically and globally. She was an executive with WPP, the world’s largest advertising holding company. She founded Effidia, an advertising technology company whose technology was acquired by a division of WPP. Dina also created one of the first applications to bridge text messaging across CDMA, TDMA, and GSM spectrum networks in the U.S.  She holds a J.D. from Yale Law School, where she studied law & economics and was an Olin Fellow with the Kauffman Program in Law, Economics and Entrepreneurship.

    Privacy Matters

    Take a look at the Apple privacy commercial. This comes up during the webinar. If it raises any questions for you, please let the speaker know. Write to us at Questions@LitigationConferences.com. What do you think?

    Check out the MoginRubin Blog for insights on anticompetition, privacy, mergers and more.

  • PTSD in Multi-Plaintiff and Mass Tort Cases | Webinar OnDemand

    [one-fourth-first]

    Price: $47
    When: On-demand
    Where:     Your computer or mobile device
    CLE:     1 hour

    Speakers

    Mark I. Levy MD, DLFAPA
    Medical Director
    Forensic Psychiatric Associates Medical Corporation
    Associate Clinical Professor, Psychiatry
    University of California, San Francisco, School of Medicine
    415.388.8040
    mlevy@fpamed.com 

    Sarah A. Hall, PhD.
    Psychologist for Forensic & Neuropsychological Assessments
    Forensic Psychiatric Associates Medical Corporation
    shall@fpamed.com 

    [/one-fourth-first][three-fourths]

    What tort attorneys need to know about PTSD claims.

    Mass tort claims arise most frequently in man-made and natural disaster catastrophe litigation as well as personal injury, employment, product liability and toxic tort litigation. Frequently, these lawsuits include either primary or secondary allegations of emotional distress. PTSD is one of the most common emotional distress claims alleged within mass tort litigation, as well as allegations of depression and emotional stress (anxiety). 

    Join an experienced psychiatrist and psychologist who will cover the following topics relevant to the forensic psychiatric assessment of emotional damages within mass tort and complex litigation: 

    + Introduction: Defining PTSD. What it is and what it is not.

    + The methodological approach to assessing allegations of emotional distress in mass tort & complex litigation.

    + The importance and the methodology of psychological testing as part of the assessment of emotional distress claims in mass tort litigation.

    + Claimant population screening. Using psychological test instruments to differentiate claimants who require in-depth forensic psychiatric assessment from claimants who do not. 

    + Are all psych tests the same? Types of psychological test instruments we recommend and ones that we do not — and why.  

    + So-called “PTSD Tests.” Do they have a role in forensic psychological assessments?

    + Accuracy and reliability of conclusions derived from psychological test data.

    + Taking a “team approach” to emotional distress claim assessment in mass tort litigation. 

    [/three-fourths]

  • CNN — Jury returns $2 billion verdict against Monsanto for couple with cancer — the biggest so far

    [one-half-first][/one-half-first] [one-half]

    A California jury returned a $2.055 billion verdict against Monsanto and their popular weed killer, Roundup. “The verdict in Oakland includes more than $55 million in compensatory damage and $2 billion in punitive damages.” The septuagenarian plaintiffs, represented by attorney Michael Miller of The Miller Firm, were a California couple that said long-term exposure to Roundup caused both of them to be diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma, a cancer that usually cannot be traced back to a source according to the American Cancer Society. The particular carcinogen in Roundup is glyphosate, which the EPA has stated was not a carcinogen in a 2015 assessment, which contradicts WHO’s statement that glyphosate is “probably carcinogenic to humans”. While a Monsanto spokesperson previously denied any manipulation, a jury found that a series of texts and emails between Monsanto and the EPA that proved Monsanto culpable of manipulating science.

    [/one-half]

    Read the complete post by Michael Nedelman on CNN.com here!

  • The Wrong-Headedness of Hindsight Standards — Michelle Yeary | Drug & Device Law Blog

    Dechert LLP attorney Michelle Yeary cautions against applying perfect hindsight to drug liability.

    “We all know hindsight is 20/20.  And, it’s easy.  There are dozens of television and radio programs that thrive on Monday morning quarterbacking.  There’s no risk in saying the coach should have called for a pass when you already know the run didn’t work.  It’s also dangerous because it’s easy.  People are often too quick to point out that you should have taken path B after everyone learns path A is full of potholes.  Pointing it out is one thing, holding you liable for it is another.”

    Yeary takes a look at what happened in Holley v. Gilead Science, Inc., 2019 WL 2077845 (N.D. Cal. May 10, 2019). The case involves two of the main active ingredients in AIDS drugs: TDF and TAF. The plaintiff alleges that the defendant should be responsible for allegedly knowingly using TDF over TAF (allegedly a safer alternative). TDF was FDA approved first and TAF second.  Unfortunately, Yeary wrote, hindsight “can be used to demand perfection,” allowing  plaintiffs to “proceed on what is essentially a stop-selling theory,” that first-generation drugs should not be submitted to the FDA because, in hindsight, “later approved treatments were safer.” That’s what happened in Holley, she said.

    Read the complete post by Michelle Yeary on the Drug and Device Law Blog here. 

    Read the opinion here.

  • J&J Hit with $120 Million Verdict at Mesh Trial

    A Philadelphia jury returned a $120 million verdict against Johnson & Johnson after finding that a negligently designed pelvic mesh implant caused chronic pain and suffering, which left plaintiff Susan McFarland incontinent and unable to have sex for the last 10 years. McFarland alleged the implant she received in 2008 caused the product to saw through the soft tissue in her pelvis and become exposed in her vagina. She had to undergo a second surgery to remove a portion of the implant (Susan McFarland,et al. v. Ethicon Inc., et al., No. 130701577, Phila. Comm. Pls. Ct.).

    This is the second of two trials. The jury in the first trial was deadlocked, unable to agree on the extent of negligence of the design of the Ethicon product. Tracie Palmer, McFarland’s attorney, added in the second trial that the vaginal mesh was on market prior to clinical studies determining its safety and efficacy. 

    Defense attorney Adam Spicer maintained that the chronic pain McFarland experienced could be due to other causes, including her age. He said the product had been used for years prior. 

    McFarland’s case is one of more than 100,000 cases brought together in the MDL, down from nearly 105,000 cases against seven manufacturers.  The MDL will be closing and there will be two more waves of trial, with next wave comprising 150 cases. Final settlement conferences are scheduled for August 1 with trial set to begin August 14.

    McFarland and her husband are represented by Tracie Palmer, Braden Lepisto, Shanin Specter and Lee Balefsky of Kline & Specter PC.

    Ethicon is represented by Kate Skagerberg of Beck Redden LLP, Adam Spicer, Paul Rosenblatt and Jordan Walker of Butler Snow LLP, and D. Alicia Hickok, Kenneth Murphy and Melissa Merk of Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP.