For several years now current good manufacturing practice (cGMP) violations have been viewed as “the next hot thing” in False Claims Act (FCA) litigation.
Glass Half Full for U.S. Creditors in Jaffe V. Samsung Electronics Co.: Fourth Circuit Rules in Favor of U.S. Creditors in Chapter 15 Jurisdictional Dispute
On December 3, 2013, the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit upheld, in Jaffe v. Samsung Electronics Co., the power, and the duty, of a United States Bankruptcy Court to condition the grant of Bankruptcy Code section 1521(a)(5) relief to a foreign insolvency administrator on conditions sufficient to protect the interests of all interested parties affected by the relief.
One of the exceptions to federal jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”) is known as the “local controversy exception.”
Fourth Circuit Requires Penalties for FCA Violations, Even Where No Government Economic Damage Found
In a decision sure to generate comment during the new year, the Fourth Circuit ruled in United States ex rel. Bunk v. Gosselin World Wide Moving, No. 12-1369, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 25225 (Dec. 19, 2013), that penalties of some amount must be awarded for violations of the civil False Claims Act even though the trial court had determined the government suffered no economic damage.
In the Fourth Circuit’s recent decision in Scott v. Family Dollar Stores, the concurrence and dissent sharply disagreed about the significance of the majority opinion. Depending on which opinion you read, Family Dollar is either a sweeping reinterpretation of the Supreme Court’s class action decision in Wal-Mart v. Dukes or a narrow holding reiterating the rule in favor of liberal amendment of complaints. Time will tell who is right.
Fourth Circuit Finds District Court Erroneously Applied Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. V. Dukes in Denying Leave to Amend Complaint in Pay Discrimination Suit
In its recent decision in Scott v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc., No. 12-1610 (4th Cir. Oct. 16, 2013), the Fourth Circuit ruled that the district court abused its discretion by refusing to allow plaintiffs asserting claims of gender-based pay discrimination leave to file an amended complaint based upon an erroneous interpretation of the Rule 23(a) commonality requirements for class certification set forth by the United States Supreme Court in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011).
Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals Takes Rare Step of Vacating Arbitrator’s Award, Saving Employer $400,000
A divided panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit took the unusual step of reversing an arbitrator’s award in favor of an ex-employee, finding that the arbitrator’s award was in “manifest disregard” of the law.
While commentators can, and often do, debate fine points regarding the technical elements of a class action claim, the result in a given case is often dictated by a more fundamental concern. That issue is whether the judge views class action treatment as an exception to the general rule or, instead, as a fundamental right.
Undefeated welterweight boxer Floyd Mayweather, Jr. has added to his string of victories, with his most recent win coming from the Fourth Circuit in the decision Dash v. Mayweather.
Fourth Circuit Holds That Virginia Government Cannot Prohibit Alcohol Advertising in All College Newspapers
Last week the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (based in Richmond, VA) handed down the attached decision in Educational Media v. Insley, No. 12-2183 (Sept. 25, 2013). The case underlines the trend to provide commercial speech, even speech about heavily-regulated products like alcohol beverages, with strong protection under the Constitution’s First Amendment.