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.

Search results

Order by: most recent most popular relevance



Results:1-8 of 8

Supreme Court limits liability for opinion statements in registration statements
  • Alston & Bird LLP
  • USA
  • March 27 2015

On March 24, 2015, the Supreme Court issued its long-awaited decision in Omnicare, Inc. v. Laborers District Council Construction Industry Pension


Supreme Court holds that juries decide issues of trademark tacking
  • Alston & Bird LLP
  • USA
  • January 27 2015

Overview On January 21, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its first substantive trademark ruling in a decade in the case Hana Financial, Inc. v


Seventh Circuit achieves broad interpretation of ERISA 510
  • Alston & Bird LLP
  • USA
  • October 8 2012

In a recent anti-retaliation lawsuit, the Seventh Circuit decided as a matter of first impression that unsolicited, informal complaints constitute a protected “inquiry” under ERISA 510.


Ninth Circuit holds that using corporate computers in violation of company policies cannot be prosecuted for exceeding access under CFAA, opens circuit split
  • Alston & Bird LLP
  • USA
  • April 10 2012

An en banc U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled today that employers and website hosts cannot use the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act to prosecute users who violate company policies or website terms of use.


Supreme Court to resolve Circuit split over materiality “standard”
  • Alston & Bird LLP
  • USA
  • June 21 2010

Last week, the Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a relatively new Circuit split over a pharmaceutical company's duty to disclose negative information it receives about its products.


The circuits are split: does Metlife v. Glenn’s “structural conflict” holding apply when employee benefits are funded from a trust?
  • Alston & Bird LLP
  • USA
  • July 23 2009

Subsequent to the Supreme Court’s decision in MetLife v. Glenn, 128 S.Ct. 2343 (2008), federal courts around the country have attempted to reconcile Glenn’s holding that a structural conflict of interest exists when an employer “both funds the employee benefit plan and evaluates the claims” with prior circuit court precedent holding that no conflict of interest exists when employee benefits are funded from a trust.


Circuit split over the removability of 1933 Act claims under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005
  • Alston & Bird LLP
  • USA
  • March 4 2009

In a decision recently issued by the Seventh Circuit, Katz v. Gerardi, No. 08-8031, 2009 WL 18137, at 4 (7th Cir. Jan. 5, 2009), the Court of Appeals held that securities class actions that meet the jurisdictional requirements of the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (“CAFA”) are removable, subject to CAFA’s exceptions to removal in Sections 1332(d)(9) and 1453(d) of the Act.


Mandatory contribution to health benefits a new circuit split on ERISA preemption?
  • Alston & Bird LLP
  • USA
  • October 7 2008

The Ninth Circuit has ruled that the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) does not preempt a San Francisco ordinance that requires employers to pay a certain minimal amount toward employees’ health insurance.