Andrew McCabe Gets Real

Closing arguments represent a trial attorney's final opportunity to shape jury deliberations by providing a persuasive framework for interpreting evidence and reaching a verdict. This analysis explores how experienced litigators craft compelling narratives, address weaknesses, and connect logic with emotion to guide jurors toward their desired outcome.

A federal court in Iowa denied summary judgment to Medicare Health Advisors after defense counsel failed to properly authenticate Jornaya lead records and establish hearsay exceptions in a TCPA class action. The ruling highlights critical procedural mistakes in presenting consent evidence and reveals how improper handling of third-party verification records can transform a potential defense victory into millions of dollars in litigation exposure.

Class action litigation filings under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) dropped 45% in July 2026 compared to the previous year, marking a potential turning point after years of rising cases. While year-to-date filings remain 9.7% higher than 2025, the cooling trend raises questions about what factors are driving this significant decline in TCPA lawsuits.

A North Carolina Superior Court denied class certification in an antitrust case involving indirect purchasers who alleged a hospital network's anticompetitive conduct inflated their health insurance premiums. The court found plaintiffs failed to demonstrate class-wide impact through common proof, particularly rejecting their expert's pass-through theory as insufficiently rigorous and excluding key portions of the expert report.

Since the Washington Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Old Navy, retailers and consumer brands have faced an unprecedented wave of CEMA subject-line litigation.  Each case threatens existential exposure. Many defendants initially pursued a familiar strategy: seek dismissal of these cases at the pleading stage. The problem?

A federal court in California denied preliminary approval of a $2.3 million data breach settlement affecting over 220,000 individuals, finding seven critical deficiencies in the proposed agreement. The decision highlights the rigorous scrutiny courts apply to class action settlements, particularly regarding claims-made distribution processes, inadequate documentation of settlement value, and unexplained disparate treatment among class members.

A federal court granted Disney's motion to compel arbitration in an antitrust class action, allowing the company to invoke fuboTV's subscriber terms of service after acquiring a 70% stake in the streaming platform. The ruling demonstrates how corporate mergers can fundamentally alter litigation strategy by enabling non-signatories to enforce arbitration agreements containing "future affiliates" provisions.

Under Washington State law, failing to act in a timely manner at any stage of a lawsuit, from pre-suit initiation through active litigation to post-judgment proceedings, can carry severe procedural and substantive consequences. These consequences range from the absolute bar of a claim or defense to monetary sanctions, evidentiary exclusions, dismissal of the action, and the loss of the right to appeal or collect on a judgment.

The Washington Court of Appeals affirmed a trial court's denial of an employer's motion to compel arbitration in a wage and hour class action, finding the arbitration agreement procedurally unconscionable. The ruling examines how employers present arbitration agreements to employees and whether workers receive meaningful opportunity to understand terms before signing, with significant implications for class action litigation strategy.

The Mortgage Bankers Association has filed a federal lawsuit challenging New Jersey's disparate impact discrimination rules, arguing they lack constitutional safeguards and conflict with federal law. The complaint asserts the rules impose unrecoverable compliance costs on lenders and create operational burdens by requiring different policies across states.

In In re Nussbaum Lowinger LLP, the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (the Court) dismissed Chapter 11 bankruptcy cases commenced by two law firms and did so in favor of their assignment for the benefit of creditors proceeding already pending in New York state court. This decision provides useful guidance for creditors, assignees, and debtors evaluating whether to move from a state law assignment for the benefit of creditors to a federal bankruptcy case.

The FDA is advancing significant changes to drug manufacturing oversight through proposed PDUFA VIII commitments, new registration pathways for distributed manufacturing, and enhanced inspection protocols. These developments aim to strengthen supply chain transparency, streamline facility readiness assessments, and reinforce good clinical practice standards in an increasingly globalized clinical trial landscape.

The SEC's Division of Corporation Finance has announced a significant policy shift regarding shareholder proposals under Exchange Act Rule 14a-8, eliminating its longstanding practice of responding to company...

The Fifth Circuit's decision in East Fork Enterprises v. EPA vacates EPA's methylene chloride risk management rule and underlying unreasonable risk determination, fundamentally challenging the agency's approach to TSCA administration. The ruling addresses critical issues including the "whole chemical" versus "condition of use" methodology, EPA's treatment of personal protective equipment in risk assessments, and the interpretation of "unreasonable risk" under TSCA.

Hospital and health system counsel face unprecedented challenges as AI transforms patient data into a critical asset, requiring navigation of complex de-identification strategies, state AI and privacy law compliance, and model ownership issues. This session provides in-house legal teams with a practical framework for managing AI-driven healthcare data transactions and governance structures they were never formally trained to handle.

The Federal Trade Commission has proposed a new enforcement policy targeting personalized pricing practices, signaling heightened scrutiny of businesses that use consumer data to set individualized prices. As states simultaneously advance their own surveillance pricing legislation—ranging from disclosure mandates to outright bans—companies face an increasingly complex regulatory landscape that demands...

On August 27, 2026, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) (together, the Agencies) issued a final rule (the Final Rule) adopting a regulatory definition for the term “unsafe or unsound practice” and revising the supervisory framework for issuing matters requiring attention (MRAs), as part of the Agencies’ more comprehensive efforts to focus supervisory and institution attention on material financial risks. On the same date, the OCC issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (the MRA Rule) to establish regulatory standards for the types of legal violations that can support an MRA.

A federal court in Illinois recently dismissed a cybersecurity-related False Claims Act qui tam complaint against Archer Daniels Midland Company, primarily on materiality grounds. The decision highlights the stringent requirements relators face when pursuing cybersecurity FCA claims, particularly the need to demonstrate that alleged cybersecurity deficiencies would have significantly affected the government's payment decisions. The court's analysis provides critical guidance on pleading requirements for fal

A federal district court has preliminarily enjoined the EPA from reclassifying California's Clean Air Act preemption waiver orders as "rules" subject to the Congressional Review Act. The court found that EPA's reclassification likely violated the Administrative Procedure Act and exceeded the agency's authority, though the order does not prevent Congress from proceeding with pending disapproval resolutions.

The U.S. Treasury and IRS have proposed regulations that would deny tax-exempt status to private schools maintaining discriminatory policies based on race, color, or national origin, including affirmative action programs ruled unconstitutional in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard.