MENU

Litigation

ALI Civil Justice Update - Podcast

Litigation & Professional Responsibilities & Legal Education Practice Group Podcast
Victor E. Schwartz August 10, 2017

Since 1923, the  American Law Institute has exercised more influence on judge-made common law than any other private institution. The ALI’s most influential work has come in the form of periodic publications known as Restatements of the Law. These descriptions of existing law are relied on and trusted by judges, lawyers, legal scholars, and law students for thoughtfully objective analysis. In 2009, ALI published the first volume of “Restatement of the Law Third, Torts: Liability for Physical and Emotional Harm.” For the first time in the institute’s history, its restatement went beyond reviewing existing law and recommended fundamental change: an unprecedented expansion of landowners’ duty of care to all visitors, including unwanted trespassers. This restatement was lauded by the trial bar and sent shockwaves through corporate legal circles. Although ALI has as much right as other interest groups to advocate for changes in the law, is it still entitled to special deference from judges? Justice Antonin Scalia raised concerns in a 2015 opinion. The authors of ALI restatements, he observed, have “over time . . . abandoned the mission of describing the law, and have chosen instead to set forth their aspirations for what the law ought to be.” Victor Schwartz, Partner at Shook Hardy & Bacon, joined us for a discussion on the American Law Institute's evolving position on civil liability reform.

Featuring:

  • Victor E. Schwartz, Partner, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP

Can Laws be Simple?

Short video featuring Richard Epstein
Richard A. Epstein August 08, 2017

Can the Common Law be reduced to a series of simple rules?  Professor Richard Epstein of NYU School of Law argues “yes," even in spite of the complexity of modern society.

Professor Epstein provides an alternative to the conventional view that property rights are arbitrarily created by the state, and therefore can be changed at will by the state; a few simple rules, he argues, are universal principles of social organization, consistent across time and culture, which form the basis of social gains.

Professor Epstein is the inaugural Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law at NYU School of Law, a Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, and Professor of Law Emeritus and a senior lecturer at the University of Chicago.

Studying the Common Law

Short video featuring Richard Epstein
Richard A. Epstein August 08, 2017

In law school, the four major branches of the Common Law, property, contract, tort, and restitution are treated as distinct subjects with arbitrary rules. Professor Richard Epstein of NYU School of Law argues that this approach misses the mark, that there is a deep intellectual unity among these subjects.

Professor Epstein provides an alternative to the conventional view that property rights are arbitrarily created by the state, and therefore can be changed at will by the state; a few simple rules, he argues, are universal principles of social organization, consistent across time and culture, which form the basis of social gains.

Professor Epstein is the inaugural Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law at NYU School of Law, a Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, and Professor of Law Emeritus and a senior lecturer at the University of Chicago.

Antitrust Enforcement in the Modern Era - Podcast

Corporations, Securities & Antitrust Practice Group Podcast
Joshua D. Wright July 24, 2017

With a change in administration, businesses and consumers alike are searching the tea leaves for indications about how new policy setters will analyze market power, mergers and acquisitions.  Will economic analysis play a greater or lesser role? Will the conventional distinctions between horizontal and vertical mergers persist? How will consumer interest be weighed? On the international front, is foreign countries’ use of competition laws to influence or judge American businesses on the rise and, if so, to what effect?

Featuring: 

  • Hon. Joshua D. Wright, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University

Courthouse Steps: California Public Employees’ Retirement System v. ANZ Securities - Podcast

Litigation Practice Group Podcast
Mark Chenoweth June 28, 2017

On April 17, 2017, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in California Public Employees’ Retirement System v. ANZ Securities. Between July 2007 and January 2008, Lehman Brothers raised over $31 billion through debt offerings. California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS), the largest pension fund in the country, purchased millions of dollars of these securities. CalPERS sued Lehman Brothers in 2011, and their case was merged with another retirement fund’s putative class action suit against Lehman Brothers and transferred to a New York district court. Later that year, the other parties settled, but CalPERS decided to pursue its claims individually. The district court dismissed for untimely filing, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed.

The question before the Supreme Court was whether the filing of a putative class action serves, under the American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah rule, to satisfy the three-year time limitation in Section 13 of the Securities Act with respect to the claims of putative class members. On Monday, the Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeals dismissal of the lawsuit. Mark Chenoweth of the Washington Legal Foundation joined us to discuss the decision and its significance.

Featuring:

  • Mark Chenoweth, General Counsel, Washington Legal Foundation