Article III

News & Analysis as of

US District Court in Pennsylvania Dismisses Data Breach Class Action on Article III Standing

In Storm & Holt v. Paytime, Inc., 1:14-cv-01138-JEJ (MD Penn. Mar. 13, 2015), the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania addressed the Article III standing issue of when a cause of action may...more

New Source Review Update: Courts Limit Aggregation for Major Source Determination and Challenges to NSR Pre-Project Emissions...

Pennsylvania Court Limits NSR Permit Aggregation - In February, the Middle District of Pennsylvania struck down an environmental group’s challenge that Ultra Resources should have aggregated eight compressor stations...more

Litigant Consent and the Power of the Bankruptcy Court

The Supreme Court is currently considering the case of Wellness International Network, Ltd. v. Shariff. As discussed in the blog post on February 16, 2015, at issue in the Wellness International Network case is “whether...more

Federal Court Decision Demonstrates Ongoing Challenges Faced by Plaintiffs in Data Breach Litigation

On February 11, 2015, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas dismissed a class action complaint against the St. Joseph Health System arising out of a data security breach that occurred after hackers...more

Stern with a Twist: Supreme Court to Consider Constitutional Authority of Bankruptcy Courts

The Supreme Court has an opportunity to clarify the constitutionality of the allocation of power between federal district courts and bankruptcy courts....more

Losing At Dodge Ball: Understanding The Supreme Court’s Implied Authorization Of Consent In Executive Benefits Insurance Agency V....

In this Article: - Introduction - A Tale as Old as Time: The Evolution of Bankruptcy Jurisdiction Before Stern - Let’s Talk About Stern, Baby - Much Ado About Nothing: Executive Benefits Insurance...more

Biosimilars Update

Novartis came one step closer to becoming the first company to offer a biosimilar drug for sale in the United States. Last month, an independent panel voted 14-0 to recommend FDA approval of Sandoz’s (Novartis’ generics...more

California District Court Finds Threat of Future Harm Sufficient to Confer Article III Standing in Data Breach Action

In a departure from the mounting body of case law finding that the “increased risk of future harm” is insufficient to confer Article III standing on victims of a data breach, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District...more

SEC ALJs Face Free Enterprise Challenge

Several years ago, I testified as an expert witness in an administrative proceeding brought by the Securities and Exchange Commission. The hearing was held in what looked like a courtroom before what appeared to be a judge...more

U.S. Supreme Court Invites Solicitor General’s Views On Whether Certiorari Should Be Granted In Case Involving Standing To Recover...

Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court invited the Solicitor General to file a brief to express the Obama administration’s views on whether certiorari should be granted in a consumer case involving an important issue of statutory...more

Illinois Federal Court Grants Neiman Marcus’ Motion to Dismiss Data Breach Action on Article III Standing

Once again, a court finds that data breach plaintiffs do not have the requisite Article III constitutional standing to pursue civil action against a retailer – itself the victim of a cyber attack. Last week, the United...more

E-discovery: May federal courts insist that litigants “Do as I say, not as I do”?

General Counsel of Acme Widget Corp. has had a trying morning. On her desk is a motion filed against Acme last night, demanding that a federal judge sanction Acme for failing to preserve what (to her at any rate) sounds...more

Oxfam America Takes A Stand, But Does It Have Standing?

Recently, I wrote about Oxfam America’s new lawsuit against the Securities and Exchange Commission for failing to adopt a final rule implementing Section 1504 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. ...more

Will the Supreme Court Take a Stand on Standing in BP Case?

It is axiomatic that to certify a class, plaintiffs must show all members satisfy Article III standing and Rule 23 requirements. While federal courts "do not require each member of a class to submit evidence of personal...more

Mind the Statutory Gap (aka A Jurisdictional Mess)

As we all know, on June 9 of this year, the Supreme Court issued its long awaited decision in Executive Benefits Ins. Agency vs. Arkison, 134 S. Ct. 2165, 189 L. Ed. 2d 83 (2014), which we had hoped would resolve the open...more

Statutory Right to Appeal Does Not Bypass Article III Standing Requirements

Consumer Watchdog v. Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation - The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit dismissed an appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the Board) on the grounds that the appellant, a...more

Polsinelli Podcasts - Supreme Court Closes Gap on Bankruptcy Issue [Video]

The United States Supreme Court decided in Executive Benefits Insurance Agency v. Arkison that while bankruptcy courts do not have the power to make final decisions on so-called “Stern claims,” they can try or “hear” those...more

Christmas in July: Will Bankruptcy Lawyers Find a Lump of Coal in Their Stockings?

As spring rolls into summer, bankruptcy practitioners await the Supreme Court’s decision in Executive Benefits Insurance Agency v. Arkinson. With the Supreme Court’s term ending June 30, 2014, some wonder if the Court will,...more

Bankruptcy Beat: The US Supreme Court Clarifies the Role of the Bankruptcy Court in Stern v. Marshall-Type Proceedings

On June 19, 2014 the Supreme Court of the United States in Executive Benefits Insurance Agency v. Arkison, 134 S. Ct. 2165 (2014) affirmed and clarified its prior decision in Stern v. Marshall, 131 S. Ct. 2594 (2011) which...more

The Supreme Court Continues to Limit Bankruptcy Court Powers: The Constitutional Powers of a Bankruptcy Judge: Why it Matters

On June 9, 2014, the United States Supreme Court issued the decision Executive Benefits Insurance Agency v. Arkinson, Trustee of the Estate of Bellingham Insurance Agency, Inc., which deals with the constitutional limits on...more

Supreme Court Clarifies Procedure for Deciding Stern Claims in Bankruptcy Courts, But Leaves Big Questions Unresolved

Bankruptcy courts have jurisdiction over "core" and "non-core" proceedings. See 28 U.S.C. § 157. In "core" proceedings, bankruptcy courts can enter final judgments. See 28 U.S.C. § 157(b). In "non-core" proceedings, however,...more

Court Dismisses Data Breach Class Action for Lack of Article III Standing

Last month in its decision in In re Sci. Applications Int’l Corp. (SAIC) Backup Tape Data Theft Litigation, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64125, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed all but two...more

Stern Revisited: Big Questions Remain Unresolved

In its recent decision, Executive Benefits Insurance Agency v. Arkison (In re Bellingham Insurance Agency, Inc.), the Supreme Court reiterated and expanded on the reasoning in Stern v. Marshall and made clear that a...more

Supreme Court Decides Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus

On June 16, 2014, the United States Supreme Court decided Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, No. 13-193, holding that a credible threat of enforcement of a law is sufficient to establish an Article III injury in fact....more

Supreme Court Clarifies Bankruptcy Court Jurisdiction (Somewhat)

In 2011, the Supreme Court decided Stern v. Marshall, 564 U.S. ___, 131 S. Ct. 2594 (2011), which gave voice to the Court’s grave concerns about the constitutional limits of bankruptcy court jurisdiction and raised several...more

70 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 3