Intelligence

A federal magistrate judge blocked an employer from distributing a dispute resolution agreement with a class action waiver to settlement class members between preliminary and final approval stages. The court found that despite the agreement's non-coercive language, the timing created unacceptable risks of confusion that could interfere with class members' settlement rights.

A federal judge dismissed a securities fraud class action against former executives of a business communications company, finding that plaintiffs failed to adequately plead actionable misstatements or establish scienter. The court analyzed allegations concerning revenue projections, financial disclosures, and internal controls during the company's transition from hardware to subscription-based software, ultimately determining that forward-looking statements were protected by safe harbor provisions and that

The Ninth Circuit has amended its opinion in a securities fraud class action against a pop culture collectibles manufacturer, clarifying that the company's risk disclosures improperly framed already-realized harms as hypothetical future risks. The court denied petitions for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc, maintaining its partial reversal of the district court's dismissal of claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act.

Expert reports are often invaluable in civil and criminal cases. In general, these reports provide the trier of fact with an opinion from an expert witness who possesses specialized knowledge, skill or experience on technical or scientific issues in dispute that are beyond the trier of fact’s knowledge or experience.

When legal issues arise, many New Jersey businesses default to a "no comment" stance, believing silence protects them from liability. However, this approach can allow allegations to go unanswered, critical deadlines to pass, and manageable disputes to escalate into costly litigation. Understanding when silence serves your interests versus when it creates unnecessary risk is essential for protecting your business.

In a long-awaited decision, the Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court in Zafirov and found the False Claims Act’s qui tam provisions do not violate the Appointments Clause. However, the court remanded for consideration of the defendants’ other constitutional arguments, and other cases challenging the constitutionality of qui tam are pending before the Third and Fifth Circuits.