Texas Supreme Court Draws Line on Attorney Immunity Privilege
What Health Care Providers and Facilities Should Know About the PREP Act's "Covered Countermeasures"
What No Statutory COVID Immunity Means for Businesses
Blakes Continuity Podcast: Life Sciences: Liability and Immunity During COVID-19
More Emerging Litigation Claims and Demands from COVID-19
We have previously reported on the class action suit against AbbVie alleging misconduct and antitrust violations in connection with AbbVie’s assertion of patents to prevent the sale of biosimilar versions of Humira® in the...more
Alien Tort Statute (ATS)/Political Question Doctrine/Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act (FSIA)/ Act of State Doctrine - District Court Dismisses ATS Claim Where Alleged Conduct in US was not Directly Linked to Injuries...more
While the casual observer wouldn’t think that a Wall Street trader would have much in common with an Olympic athlete, their respective organizations share a common status-both are exempt or immune from the antitrust laws. The...more
In a closely followed decision with significant consequences for state licensing boards and their members, the Supreme Court in North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. Federal Trade Commission, 135 S. Ct. 1101...more
In North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. F.T.C., No. 13-534 (2015), the United States Supreme Court ruled last week that the North Carolina Dental Board, which is comprised mainly of practicing dentists, was not...more
The United States Supreme Court’s recent decision in N.C. State Bd. of Dental Examiners v. Federal Trade Commission, No. 13-534, 2015 WL 773331 (S.Ct. February 25, 2015) makes clear that the anticompetitive actions of state...more
On Wednesday, February 25, 2015, the Supreme Court released a 6-3 decision in North Carolina Board of Dental Examiners v. Federal Trade Commission, a case with potentially broad implications for regulation by dental and...more
In a 6–3 decision issued February 25, 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States held in North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. Federal Trade Commission that if active market participants control an entity—even a...more
On Feb. 25, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court held in a 6-3 decision that a state board with a controlling number of decision-makers who are active market participants in the occupation the board regulates does not enjoy state...more
In a ruling with significant implications for state professional licensing boards and their members, on February 25, 2015, the United States Supreme Court found that practitioner-controlled state boards do not have inherent...more
On February 25, 2015, in a 6-3 decision authored by Justice Kennedy, the Supreme Court upheld the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) decision finding that the North Carolina Board of Dental Examiners (Board), although a state...more
On October 14, 2014, the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied a motion for reconsideration brought by members and affiliates of the former Eastern Mushroom Marketing Cooperative (EMMC). In re Mushroom Direct Purchaser...more
On October 14, 2014, the United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments in North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. FTC, a U.S. Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit decision upholding an FTC finding that the North...more
On October 24, 2013, Governor Andrew Cuomo signed what we believe is the first post-Phoebe Putney statute (see FTC v. Phoebe Putney Health Sys., Inc., 133 S. Ct. 1003 (2013)), extending the State’s antitrust immunity to...more
The United States Supreme Court’s recent decision in FTC v. Phoebe Putney Health System, Inc., No. 11-1160, 568 U.S. __ (2013), makes clear that a state’s authorization to act in a manner with potentially anticompetitive...more