The U.S. Supreme Court recently heard arguments in Wisconsin Bell, Inc. v. United States ex rel. Todd Heath, Docket No. 23-1127, a case in which the Court agreed to review whether reimbursement requests submitted to the...more
I. Introduction: On October 3, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court held oral argument in Community Financial Services Association of America Ltd. v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. This case has potentially widespread...more
A perennial debate exists in the white-collar space: do the benefits of self-disclosure outweigh the risks associated with providing the government with a road map to the company’s purported violation? Consistently, the...more
On April 29th, a New York Court struck down as unconstitutional the 2017 Amendment to Insurance Regulation 189. The Amendment, commonly referred to in New York as the “best interests” rule, expanded the scope of Regulation...more
Companies that make or facilitate ransomware payments were given a strong reminder of their due-diligence and compliance obligations by the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”). ...more
As the country struggles with COVID-19, many companies have applied for and received funds under the CARES Act and its Payment Protection Program (“PPP”). Those companies must understand there are significant risks tied to...more
In last week’s decision in Trump v. Vance, the Supreme Court addressed for the first time whether a state District Attorney’s Office can issue a state criminal subpoena to a President. Relying on historical examples dating as...more
7/15/2020
/ Absolute Immunity ,
Appeals ,
Article II ,
Criminal Investigations ,
Donald Trump ,
Financial Statements ,
Heightened Scrutiny ,
Income Taxes ,
Injunctive Relief ,
Reaffirmation ,
Remand ,
SCOTUS ,
Sitting President ,
Standard of Review ,
State Prosecutors ,
Subpoena Duces Tecum ,
Tax Returns ,
Trump v Deutsche Bank AG ,
Trump v Mazars USA LLP ,
Trump v Vance
Should relators rejoice? The Supreme Court may have put to rest the vast uncertainty surrounding the applicable statute of limitations in False Claim Act (“FCA”) suits where the government declines to intervene with its...more
In answering two questions posed to it by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the California Supreme Court on August 29, 2019, addressed two significant issues: 1) whether California’s common law notice-prejudice rule is a...more
9/16/2019
/ CA Supreme Court ,
Choice-of-Law ,
Consent ,
Denial of Insurance Coverage ,
First-Party Coverage ,
Insurance Industry ,
Insurance Litigation ,
Notice Prejudice Rule ,
Notice Requirements ,
Policy Terms ,
Popular ,
Public Policy ,
Third-Party Liability