We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.
In cooperation with Association of Corporate Counsel
  Request new password

Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 1-10 of 25

Nine states establish clearinghouse to reduce toxic chemicals in products

  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • February 17 2011

Nine states have launched an umbrella organization that aims to reduce the use of toxic chemicals in consumer products

Mass tort and asbestos procedures overhauled in besieged Philadelphia courts

  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • February 23 2012

Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas Administrative Judge John Herron has issued an order revising the court’s mass tort and asbestos program procedures, which, according to the order, were not meeting American Bar Association standards and thus led to delays in disposition of these disputes and an “astonishing” increase in filings from outside the state

EPA proposes new-use rules for 17 chemicals including nanoscale compounds

  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • January 12 2012

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has issued proposed significant new use rules (SNURs) for 17 chemicals, some of which are used to manufacture such products as electronics, batteries, rubber, plastics, inks, and lubricants

EPA to review chemicals found in flame retardants and fragrances

  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 14 2012

EPA has released a list of 18 chemicals, slated for risk assessments in 2013 and 2014, that are found in various commercial products

Ninth Circuit splits over interplay of standing and forum non conveniens

  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 14 2012

In response to a petition for rehearing en banc before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in a dispute over the adequacy of Peru as an alternative forum in a case involving claims by indigenous people that a U.S. oil company discharged pollutants into the waterways they used for drinking, fishing and bathing, dissenting and concurring opinions reveal a split on whether the court had jurisdiction to decide the forum non conveniens question if one of the plaintiffs, the only domestic plaintiff, lacked standing

Flea and tick collars to carry cancer exposure warning in California

  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • January 6 2011

A California court has approved a consent judgment between the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and a number of makers and retailers of flea and tick collars

Crocs agrees to pay penalty for selling unregistered antimicrobial shoes

  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • January 6 2011

Crocs, Inc. has entered a consent agreement with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that requires it to pay a $230,000 civil penalty for marketing certain shoe products in 2009 and 2010 with the claim that they killed or controlled bacterial growth

Review board to discuss ethics of research using human subjects

  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • January 12 2012

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has announced a public meeting of the Human Studies Review Board to discuss scientific and ethical reviews of research using human subjects

Sixth Circuit agrees that medical monitoring is not warranted for small risk of disease from chemical exposure

  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • September 15 2011

Ohio, residents who were purportedly exposed to toxic chemicals, including dioxin, following a train derailment and fire that occurred in 2007 near the town

Consumers taking new shots at product manufacturers

  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • April 29 2010

With an increasing number of companies touting their products as "green" or "environmentally friendly," consumers have reportedly begun challenging those claims in court complaining that they paid more for products that did not meet their expectations