APRIL 12, 2019
NLR Publish
Quick Links

IMS ExpertServices

Sheppard, Mullin, Richter, & Hampton LLP 
Squire Patton Boggs (US) 

Proskauer Rose LLP

Katten Munchin Rosenman LLP

Cadwalader, Wickersham, & Taft LLP

NLR Publish
Litigation News
In house attorneys looking for a better way to organize, vet and easily retrieve legal news created the National Law Review on-line edition.

Around the clock, the National Law Review's editors screen and classify breaking news and analysis authored by recognized legal professionals and our own journalists.

There is no log in to access the database and new articles are added hourly.​
Researchers estimate autonomous vehicles (AVs) could reduce accident rates by up to 90 percent, which would save more than 30,000 lives each year and avoid millions of injuries on American roads. Technology can mitigate many of our human weaknesses. According the General Motors Chairman Bob Lutz, “The autonomous car doesn’t drink, doesn’t do drugs, doesn’t text while driving and doesn’t get road rage. Autonomous cars don’t race other autonomous cars and they don’t go to sleep.” Though people may eventually be safer in autonomous cars than in traditional vehicles, we have a long way to go and a short time to get there. Read More on Emerging Tort Implications of Driverless Cars Here >
In an eagerly anticipated decision by the asbestos bar, the United States Supreme Court in Air & Liquid Systems et al. v. DeVries et at., Dkt. No. 17-1104, 2019 WL 1245520 (March 19, 2019) rejected the “bare metal defense” as applied to sailors under federal maritime law. The 6-3 decision, authored by Justice Kavanaugh and joined by Justices Roberts, Kagan, Ginsburg, Breyer and Sotomayor, held that “a product manufacturer has a duty to warn when (i) its product requires incorporation of a part, (ii) the manufacturer knows or has reason to know that the integrated product is likely to be dangerous for its intended uses, and (iii) the manufacturer has no reasons to believe that the product’s users will realize that danger.” Ibid. at * Read More on BARE Defense Here >
In separate decisions, a federal district court in Alaska recently struck down two Trump Administration efforts to roll back President Obama’s environmental initiatives. Taken together, these decisions signal that citizen suits can, in some sense, limit the ability of the administration to “deregulate.” To the regulated community, these decisions should serve as a warning that we continue to be in an ever-shifting legal landscape where individual decisions can buck the current deregulatory climate.  In the first case, Friends of Alaska National Wildlife Refuges v. the U.S. Department of the Interior, the District of Alaska held that the administration’s planned road through a national wildlife refuge violated federal law.   Read More on the Future of Trump's Deregulatory Agenda Here >
1. Sender Primary Liability for Misstatements in PPMs and Prospectuses: Lorenzo v. SEC (No. 17-1077 -- U.S. – 2019).
On March 27th, the Supreme Court issued a 1934 Act Rule 10b-5 opinion that will have implications for sponsors of private funds and their placement agents. By way of reminder, in Janus Capital Group Inc. v. First Derivative Traders, 546 U.S. 135 (2011), an investment adviser drafted a false statement in a mutual fund prospectus was held not liable under Rule 10b-5(b) (which prohibits making any untrue statement of material fact). The Court held that the investment adviser did not make the false statements. Read More on Law Suits and Fictitious Business Names Here >
Please let other interested professionals know about this valuable and free resource!

If you know someone interested in publishing with the National Law Review, kindly contact us at:
The National Law Review
National Law Forum, LLC
Jennifer Schaller, Esq.
NLR Publication Areas:
The National Law Review
 708-357-3317 | jschaller@natlawreview.com | www.natlawreview.com
4700 Gilbert Avenue Suite #47 #230
Western Springs, IL 60558