• Mortgage-Backed Securities Litigation: Hedge Funds vs. Banks
• Fifth Circuit Applies CAFA to Louisiana Attorney General Action
• Recent Wave of Case Law Rejects "Concealed Defect" Class Actions
• The Third Circuit Joins the Majority with In Re Hydrogen Peroxide
• After Bridge: RICO Class Actions at a Crossing
• Second Circuit: Affirms Dismissal of "Foreign-Cubed" Securities Class Actions
• Fifth Circuit Expands False Claims Act Qui Tam Provisions in Time for Debate over Stimulus Package Fraud

Federal regulators, state attorneys general and plaintiffs attorneys increasingly rely upon litigation to impose regulatory constraints on private businesses.  Through such “regulation by litigation” government officials and private attorneys bypass traditional processes and reorient regulatory priorities.  In a new book, Regulation by Litigation (Yale University Press), Andrew Morriss, Bruce Yandle, and Andrew Dorchak argue that such “regulation by litigation” is attractive to regulators and activists because it provides an inappropriate and undemocratic shortcut to imposing regulatory burdens on private firms, and needs to be curbed.  Others argue that regulation by litigation is an important regulatory tool that can help control corporate abuses and encourage the adoption of needed consumer protections.  Why is regulation by litigation on the rise?  Is regulation by litigation a problem?  And, if so, how can it be controlled?  Join the authors and prominent legal commentators for an exploration of these and related questions. [Listen now!]

On November 3, 2008, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Wyeth v. Levine to decide the extent to which FDA approval of drug marketing and labeling should preempt personal injury lawsuits brought against prescription drug manufacturers. As of the drafting of this article, the Court has yet to hand down its ruling, and the outcome of the dispute between the two litigating parties is far from clear. What is clear, however, is that there has been a fundamental shift in the nature of the preemption debate. While prescription drug product liability plaintiff s historically have argued that FDA regulatory oversight imposes only “minimum standards” that state common law can exceed without any preemptive conflict, in the Levine argument plaintiff ’s counsel conceded that state tort law claims would be preempted by some types of FDA regulatory action. In so conceding, counsel eff ectively abandoned the “minimum standards” shibboleth, opening the door to case-by-case determinations of preemption focused on the nature of FDA’s drug-specific regulatory decisions....

The February 2009 issue of Engage is now online. Engage provides original scholarship on current, important legal and policy issues. Through its publication, we aim to contribute to the marketplace of ideas in a way that is collegial, measured, and insightful—and hope to spark a higher level of debate and discussion than is all too often found in today’s legal community. [Read now!]