The National Law Forum

Section 550 of the Bankruptcy Code Won’t Cap the Flow of Avoidance Action Liability

Recently The National Law Review published an article by Renée M. Dailey and Mark E. Dendinger of Bracewell & Giuliani LLP regarding Bankruptcy Codes:

Tronox Incorporated and certain affiliates (the “Debtors”) emerged from Chapter 11 in February 2011 armed with a new capital structure and operational game plan, but that’s yesterday’s news. The flavor of the month is last Friday’s decision by Justice Allan L. Gropper (located here) in a still pending adversary proceeding in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (the “Court”) filed by the Debtors against Anadarko Petroleum Corporation and certain affiliates (“Anadarko”) seeking to recover an alleged fraudulent transfer. The Court dismissed Anadarko’s summary judgment motion, holding that while section 550 of the Bankruptcy Code provides a floor for creditor recoveries, it does not impose a cap on creditor recoveries following the determination of avoidance action liability.

In the adversary complaint, the Debtors alleged that in a prepetition transaction their predecessor corporation separated profitable oil and gas exploration and production assets from multi-billion dollar environmental and tort liabilities, in order to permit Anadarko to acquire the cleansed assets all while leaving behind significant environmental liabilities. The Debtors’ extensive environmental liabilities finally caught up with them and in January 2009 the Debtors filed for Chapter 11 protection. The Debtor’s plan of reorganization incorporated a settlement agreement by and amongst the Debtors, the environmental and tort plaintiffs and general unsecured creditors that handed general unsecured creditors the keys to the car (i.e., 100% of the Debtors’ equity) and left the environmental and tort creditors looking for alternate transportation – proceeds from the pending adversary proceeding – as the main source of their recovery. With the adversary proceeding trial starting in May, Anadarko and the Debtors filed competing motions for partial summary judgment on the limited issue of damages. The issue at hand was the interpretation of section 550(a), specifically the clause “for the benefit of the estate” and whether it places a damage cap on prospective fraudulent transfer liability.

By way of background, section 550 prescribes the damages owed by a transferee once a fraudulent transfer is avoided by a bankruptcy court. Specifically, subsection (a) permits the debtor in possession to recover either the value of the property or the property itself “for the benefit of the estate.” 11 U.S.C. § 550(a). In its motion for partial summary judgment, Anadarko argued that this language capped its liability, if any, in the fraudulent conveyance litigation to the total claims of the environmental and tort plaintiffs that would benefit from any fraudulent transfer litigation judgment. Specifically, Anadarko argued that the Debtors were inappropriately seeking to recover approximately $15.5 billion, despite the fact that the total amount of the environmental and tort claims at the time of prepetition transfer of assets was no more than $2 billion. The Debtors, on the other hand, asserted that the plain language of section 550(a) and relevant case law imposed no such ceiling on the Debtors’ potential recovery in the litigation.

The Court found no support for a damage cap in the plain words of section 550, and instead noted that the concept of the bankruptcy estate was broad and not limited to the interests or quantum of claims of creditors. The Court further focused on judicial interpretation of the “benefit of the estate” language and what other courts had determined constituted a “benefit” to the estate in order to permit the litigation to go forward. The Court determined that a “benefit” could either be direct (e.g., increased distribution to creditors) or indirect (e.g., increased chance of a successful Chapter 11 reorganization) and that the prospect of a recovery in the adversary proceeding had already benefited the Debtors’ estate by paving the way for a confirmable plan and raising the recovery for general unsecured creditors. Having established some benefit to the estate that could be (and here had been) obtained by bringing the avoidance action, the Court found no case law support for reading a cap on recovery into the same language. Indeed, the Court noted the significance that section 550 does not provide that a transfer can be avoided only “to the extent of the benefit to the estate.”

Anadarko further argued that because the Debtors relied on Oklahoma fraudulent transfer law – as incorporated by section 544(b) of the Bankruptcy Code – as the basis for a liability determination, the limitation under Oklahoma’s law that a creditor may not recover more than the amount of its claim should apply. The Court rejected this argument noting that such limitation was only relevant where an individual creditor was seeking to recover in a non-bankruptcy scenario and noted that the language of section 550 preempted relevant state law in this regard.

The Court noted that whether other relevant law would mitigate any ultimate finding of liability would require a full trial to drill down on the merits. All that is clear now is that section 550 does not cap the flow of damages from the liability well . . .

Cutting Edge Issues in Asbestos Litigation Conference

The National Law Review would like to advise you of the upcoming Perrin Conference regarding Cutting-Edge Issues in Asbestos Litigation:

Thursday, March 1^st – Friday, March 2^nd, 2012
Beverly Wilshire, A Four Seasons Hotel
Beverly Hills, CA

Public Company Control Alert: NYSE Acts to Further Limit Broker Votes on Specified Corporate Governance Proposals

Recently in Then National Law Review was an article by Louis Lehot, John D. Tishler, Edwin Astudillo and Nina Karalis of Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP regarding the NYSE Limiting Broker Voting:

On January 25, 2012, the New York Stock Exchange issued an Information Memo to its member organizations stating that effective immediately, brokers may not vote on corporate governance proposals supported by company management without instructions from their clients. NYSE’s rules affect the voting of all shares held in “street name” by NYSE member organizations, regardless of whether the vote is for an issuer listed on the NYSE. This new position follows a recent regulatory and legislative trend disfavoring discretionary broker voting. The notification is a significant departure from historical practice where brokers used their discretion to cast votes on behalf of “street name” shareholders who fail to provide voting instructions with respect to what were previously viewed as “routine” matters. The NYSE’s new position will affect the voting dynamics for company-supported governance proposals, including those that companies may put forward this proxy season to avoid shareholder proposals on similar matters.

Background

NYSE Rule 452 allows a member organization (broker) to use its discretion to cast votes on behalf of “street name” shareholders who do not return the proxy card to the broker within 10 days prior to the shareholder meeting. However, such discretionary voting is not permitted with respect to “non-routine” matters. Historically, corporate governance proposals that were supported by company management were considered routine matters. Beginning in 2010, the NYSE prohibited broker discretionary voting in the context of director elections, which was codified in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010. The Dodd-Frank Act also prohibited brokers from voting shares on executive compensation proposals without specific client instruction. The NYSE’s new position with respect to company-supported corporate governance proposals is the most recent limit on broker discretionary voting. When brokers do not vote a share they hold in street name because of a lack of instructions, it is referred to a “broker non-vote.”

What changed?

The Information Memo indicated the following examples of company-supported governance proposals that would no longer be considered routine:

de-staggering a company’s board of directors;
majority voting in the election of directors;
eliminating super majority voting provisions;
providing for the use of written consent;
providing rights to call a special meeting; and
certain types of anti-takeover provision overrides.

Why is this significant?

Brokers that typically voted in favor of these type of company-supported proposals will no longer have discretion to do so. These proposals usually must be implemented through an amendment to the company’s articles or certificate of incorporation, and as such amendments typically require the affirmative vote of at least a majority of the outstanding shares, broker non-votes will have the same effect as “against” votes. Depending on the composition of shareholders, the loss of broker discretionary votes may have a material effect on the ability of a company to obtain shareholder approval for a company-supported governance proposal. The problem will be exacerbated where a proxy advisory firm recommends against the proposal. Until this rule change, discretionary broker votes countered to some degree the negative votes from holders that followed the recommendations of proxy advisory firms.

Under Delaware law, where brokers have discretionary authority to vote on any matter on the ballot, all shares they hold in street name will be considered present for quorum purposes. If brokers do not have discretionary authority to vote on any matter, shares that were not instructed on any matter are not considered present for quorum purposes. In the past, a company-supported governance proposal would be discretionary and therefore would be enough on its own to cause all street name shares to be present at a meeting for quorum purposes. That will no longer be the case.

What should you do now?

If you plan to have a company-supported governance proposal on your annual meeting agenda, it will be more important than ever to analyze the shareholder base and consider early engagement with key shareholders and the likely recommendations of the proxy advisory firms. Proxy solicitation firms can be invaluable in this analysis, and can also help to “get out the vote” of holders that may not otherwise return instruction cards.

These new rules should also be taken into account in connection with consideration of pre-empting a received or expected shareholder proposal on corporate governance matters.

Finally, if there will be other proposals on the agenda and obtaining a quorum for the meeting is a potential concern, companies might consider another proposal to support a quorum. Ratification of auditors and an increase in authorized common shares are examples of proposals that brokers may still vote uninstructed shares.

Inside Counsel presents the 12th Annual Super Conference in Chicago

National Law Review is pleased to bring you information about the upcoming 12th Annual Super Conference sponsored by Inside Counsel .

Reasons why you should Attend This Year’s Event:

Meet with Decision Makers: You’ll meet face-to-face with senior-level in-house counsel
Networking Opportunities: SuperConference offers several networking opportunities, including a cocktail reception, refreshment breaks, and a networking lunch.
Gain Industry Knowledge: You will hear the latest issues facing the industry today with your complimentary full-conference passes.

Who Should Attend – General Counsel and Other Senior Legal Executives from Top Companies Attend SuperConference:

Chief Legal Officers
General Counsel
Corporate Counsel
Associate General Counsel
CEOs
Senior Counsel
Corporate Compliance Officers

The 12th Annual IC SuperConference will be held at the NEW Radisson Blu Chicago.
Radisson Blu Aqua Hotel

221 N. Columbus Drive

Chicago, IL 60601

Don’t forget – The early discount deadline using the NLR discount code is February 24th!

New Domain Name Registry Application Period Now Open Though Critics Urge Delay

An article by Kathleen E. Blouin, Lee J. Eulgen, Antony J. McShane, Katherine Dennis Nye and Sarah E. Smith of Neal, Gerber & Eisenberg LLP regarding Domain Name Applications was recently in The National Law Review:

On Thursday, Jan. 12, 2012, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) began accepting applications from private- and public-sector entities and organizations to obtain nearly any combination of words as their own generic top-level domain name (gTLD) registry. ICANN will only accept applications for new gTLD registries for a 90-day period, concluding on April 12, 2012. The plan will drastically increase the number of available gTLDs from the currently available 22 gTLDs (e.g., .com, .net. and .org) to potentially thousands of gTLDs (e.g., .clothing, .sports, or .yourbrand). With the opening of the application period, public and private sector outcry and dissent concerning the program has started to bubble up to mainstream consciousness.

In particular, the U.S. Department of Commerce has been reviewing the pending expansion after recently obtaining input from numerous sectors of industry regarding the potential shortcomings of the program. In November 2011, an alliance of 87 business groups, organizations and companies wrote a letter to Commerce Secretary John Bryson requesting that the Department urge ICANN to postpone the opening of the gTLD expansion application period. In light of record high levels of domain name dispute filings in 2010, the coalition believes that ICANN should delay implementing the expansion until it can confidently demonstrate that the plan will enhance consumer trust, boost Internet security, create economic benefits across many sectors and show that the benefits outweigh the costs of the expansion. The coalition is led by the Association of National Advertisers and the letter’s signatories include the Intellectual Property Owners Association and the American Intellectual Property Law Association.

In addition, last month, U.S. Representative Bob Goodlatte, Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Intellectual Property, Competition and the Internet, along with Representative Howard Berman, ranking member of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, wrote to the Department of Commerce and expressed serious concerns about the dramatic expansion of gTLDs and urged the Department to encourage ICANN to undertake additional evaluation and review before initiating the robust expansion. They relayed concerns that brand owners will be forced to assume significant legal expenses to monitor and protect their trademarks and to obtain defensive registrations in light of an unprecedented number of new top-level domain names. The Representatives argued that consumers will be harmed as many of the legal expenses will be passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices. In addition, they are concerned that, as a result of the expansion, counterfeiting and piracy rates will continue to rise. They encouraged the Department of Commerce to delay the rollout until a sufficient analysis and evaluation is conducted, and until the Department is satisfied the benefits of the rollout exceed the costs and risks to consumers and businesses and to Internet safety and security.

Four commissioners of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) also sent a letter to ICANN in December urging the delay of the expansion and voicing consumer protection concerns regarding the new gTLDs. The FTC reminded ICANN that ICANN planned to ensure that consumer protection and malicious abuse issues would be adequately addressed. The FTC is particularly worried that the rapid and large-scale expansion will lead to a significant rise in the use of false Whois (domain name ownership) information by domain name registrants, slowing down the FTC’s ability to identify and locate individuals behind fraudulent or counterfeit Web sites. The FTC has proposed a few immediate steps, including the implementation of a gTLD pilot program that would substantially reduce the number of gTLDs accepted in the first application round, and would require ICANN to hire additional compliance staff and impose registrant verification requirements.

Then three weeks ago, just before the Jan. 12 opening of the ICANN application process, a Commerce Department official, Lawrence Strickling, wrote to ICANN regarding some of these concerns. In his letter, Mr. Strickling recognized that the expansion has come after years of preparation and commentary from many stakeholders. However, Mr. Strickling stated that after meeting with industry stakeholders, there is tremendous concern about the expansion that could jeopardize its success. The Commerce Department requested that ICANN take three steps. First, develop a strategy to minimize defensive registrations so that a large number of organizations and entities, concerned about cybersquatting, do not feel forced to obtain defensive gTLD registries (e.g., .theirbrands) without any interest in actually operating a registry. Second, determine whether there is a need to phase in new gTLDs after the application window closes (on April 12th) and evaluate whether additional protection measures are necessary. And, third, better engage with and educate stakeholders as to the purpose and scope of the domain name expansion and available protective resources.

2012 Young Professionals in Energy International Summit

The National Law Review is pleased to bring you information on the 2012 Young Professionals in Energy International Summit:

2012 YOUNG PROFESSIONALS IN ENERGY INTERNATIONAL SUMMIT

April 23-25, 2012

Planet Hollywood Resort & Casino

Las Vegas, Nevada

About the YPE:

Young Professionals in Energy (“YPE”) is the first and only interdisciplinary networking and volunteer organization for people in the global energy industry – a place where bankers can connect with engineers, accountants with geologists and so on. Our mission is to provide a forum for knowledge sharing and camaraderie among future leaders of the energy industry.

The event will feature panel discussions and presentations by YPE members from around the world on such vital energy issues as the world oil supply, shale, renewable energy, career issues and funding new energy projects.

Confirmed speakers include YPE members from the American Petroleum Institute, ExxonMobil, Fulbright & Jaworski L.L.P. the India Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, the Nevada Institute for Renewable Energy Commercialization, Pemex, the University of Southern California and the U.S. Dept. of Commerce.

Highlighting the three-day conference is a keynote speech by Daniel Yergin, author of the best-selling “The Quest: Energy, Security and the Remaking of the Modern World (www.danielyergin.com).

High Court: Police Tracking of Suspect Via GPS Requires Warrant

Recently found in The National Law Review an article by Rachel Hirsch of Ifrah Law regarding a recent High Court Decision Requiring a Warrant:

Last November, we discussed the U.S. Supreme Court’s oral argument in United States v. Jones, which posed the question of whether police need to obtain a warrant before attaching a GPS device to a suspect’s vehicle during a criminal investigation.

We noted that in this case, 21st-century technology had come face to face with the constitutional requirements of the Fourth Amendment. We were hoping that the high court would uphold the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and hold that this action is a search that requires a warrant, but we took a pass on predicting what the Court would actually do.

On January 23, 2012, the Court decided the case – unanimously against the government and in favor of defendant Antoine Jones. The decision is fairly gratifying for those of us who believe it desirable to curb prosecutors’ power by imposing restrictions upon it, including, where appropriate, the requirement of a judge-issued warrant.

It turns out that both the advocates of the original-intent approach to constitutional interpretation, epitomized here and in general by Justice Antonin Scalia, and those who prefer the doctrine of the “living Constitution,” led here by Justice Samuel Alito, agree that the use of a GPS device by the government constitutes a search and requires a warrant.

Scalia, writing for a majority of the Justices, observed that prosecutors had intruded upon Jones’ property in way that would have been a “trespass” under common law.

Prosecutors “physically occupied private property for the purpose of obtaining information,” Scalia wrote. “We have no doubt that such a physical intrusion would have been considered a ‘search’ within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment when it was adopted.” And for Scalia, that fact alone was enough to decide the case.

Alito, joined by three Justices who concurred in the result, used quite a different line of reasoning and sharply criticized Scalia’s majority opinion, saying that ironically, it relied upon 18th-century tort law to decide a case involving 21st-century technology.

“This holding, in my judgment, is unwise,” Alito wrote. “It strains the language of the Fourth Amendment; it has little if any support in current Fourth Amendment case law; and it is highly artificial.”

Instead, Alito wrote, he “would analyze the question presented in this case by asking whether [Jones’] reasonable expectations of privacy were violated by the long-term monitoring of the movements of the vehicle he drove.” Alito observed that for decades, the Court has invoked the concept of “reasonable expectations of privacy” in a number of cases to define the nature of a “search” under the Fourth Amendment and to expand the definition of “search” to actions that do not involve a trespass to someone’s property.

Even though Alito is often identified with the pro-prosecution, conservative wing of the Court, he took the defendant’s side in this case. As our blog post last November noted, at oral argument Alito expressed concern about how easy it is these days “to amass an enormous amount of information about people” by the use of today’s technology.

Alito’s opinion followed similar lines. In the absence of legislation about police use of GPS tracking, he wrote, “The best that we can do in this case is to apply existing Fourth Amendment doctrine and to ask whether the use of GPS tracking in a particular case involved a degree of intrusion that a reasonable person would not have anticipated.”

This is good news for constitutional rights and for defendants. Whatever approach one takes to the Fourth Amendment, it’s clear that prosecutors can’t attach a GPS to a suspect’s car without a warrant.

2012 Launching & Sustaining Accountable Care Organizations Conference

The National Law Review is pleased to bring you information on the Launching & Sustaining Accountable Care Organizations Conference will be a two-day, industry focused event specific to CEOs, COOs, CFOs, CMOs, Vice presidents and Directors with responsibilities in Accountable Care Organizations, Managed Care and Network Management from Hospitals, Physician Groups, Health Systems and Academic Medical Centers.

By attending this event, industry leaders will share best practices, strategies and tools on incorporating cost-sharing measures in a changing healthcare landscape to strengthen the business model and ensure long-term success.

Attending This Event Will Enable You to:
1. Understand the initial outcomes and lessons learned from launching ACOs, with a focus on how to sustain these partnerships in the future
2. Hear from the early adopters of ACOs or similar cost-reducing partnerships and understand their initial operational and implementation challenges.
3. Learn about the final regulations regarding ACOs and their impact on those who want to initiate the formation process
4. Gain a clear understanding of regulatory issues and accreditation processes
5. Conquering initial hurdles for establishing an ACO
6. Gain knowledge from newly-formed ACOs
7. Ensure longevity by establishing a robust long-term plan

Copyright Lessons from the Campaign Trail: Romney, Gingrich and Fair Use

Recently found in The National Law Reviewwas an article by Geri L. Haight of Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. regarding Copyrights and Fair Use:

This Republican primary season has provided lots of fodder for political blogs, but it has also provided a few gems relating to — what else — trademark issues. Now, U.S. copyright law is in the spotlight of the Republican primary campaign. First, Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney is considering whether to pull a television ad that is comprised wholly of a 30 second clip from a January 21, 1997 episode of NBC’s “Nightly News” program hosted by Tom Brokaw. The Romney ad is entitled “History Lesson” and can be viewed here. In the ad, Brokaw announces the House Ethics Committee’s decision to penalize then-Speaker Newt Gingrich. The ad contains no other voiceover or images. It ends simply with a Romney disclaimer (“Paid For By ….) and the statement that Romney approves the ad. NBC has sent the Romney campaign a cease and desist letter, alleging that the ad constitutes copyright infringement. Tom Brokaw has expressed that he is “extremely uncomfortable” with the use of his personal image. Romney’s campaign asserts that its use of the news clip “falls within fair use” and, therefore, does not violate copyright laws.

Second, Romney’s primary opponent in the race for the Republican nomination, Newt Gingrich, has copyright troubles of his own. On Monday, Gingrich was sued in Illinois by a former member of the band Survivor (under the name “Rude Music”) for his use of the song “Eye of the Tiger” at campaign events. The complaint asserts that Gingrich is “sophisticated and knowledgeable” of federal copyright law, citing Gingrich’s tenure in the U.S. House of Representatives during which the Copyright Act underwent several revisions. As evidence of Gingrich’s further familiarity with copyright laws, Rude Music cites Gingrich’s recent criticism of the Stop Online Piracy Act at the Republican primary debate in South Carolina. During that debate, Gingrich is quoted in the complaint as saying: “We have a patent office, we have copyright law. If a company finds that it has genuinely been infringed upon, it has the right to sue.” In the complaint, Rude Music seeks an injunction and unspecified monetary damages based on Gingrich’s unauthorized public performances of the song.

Romney’s and Gingrich’s recent copyright troubles involve the defense of fair use. So, what is that? This defense to a charge of copyright infringement is provided in Section 107 of the Copyright Act. Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. This provision sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair:

The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes
The nature of the copyrighted work
The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work

In Romney’s situation, NBC’s position seems to be focused largely on the first factor — its assessment that use of the news clip is commercial in nature. The clip is used in a political ad that seeks, among other things, donations to fund Romney’s campaign against Gingrich. But Romney’s campaign has stressed that it used only 30 seconds of a much longer broadcast and that it is using the clip for the content of the facts conveyed (regarding Gingrich’s past ethics violations), not for the particular style of the delivery of those facts. And Romney seems to be using the clip to comment on Gingrich’s representations during the campaign regarding these past ethics violations. The risk for the Romney campaign, however, may be the problem with reliance on the fair use in general, identified by the U.S. Copyright Office itself: “The distinction between fair use and infringement may be unclear and not easily defined.” But maybe that’s the point. The Romney ad is certainly getting lots of attention due to NBC’s assertion of a copyright infringement claim.

In Gingrich’s case, there are arguments for and against application of the fair use factors for both sides. Again, because the songs are played at campaign events, there is an arguable commercial component to the use. But there are also arguments about the use being political speech and commentary (given the theme of Gingrich’s underdog status). The case involves claims that arise frequently in the content of political campaigns (e.g., Jackson Browne sued John McCain in 2008 based on the candidate’s use of the song “Running on Empty” in an ad mocking then candidate Barack Obama’s energy policies). Though common, most cases settle early so that we do not have a wealth of case law resolving this issue.

NBC and Rude Music have both expressed false endorsement and right of publicity concerns. By using the NBC news clip, does the public believe that NBC and/or Brokaw endorse Romney? Or does the band Survivor endorse Gingrich because Gingrich uses “Eye of the Tige” at his campaign events? Clearly, this perception is a concern to Brokaw, who has stated that he does not “want [his] role as a journalist compromised for political gain by any campaign[.]“ In a world where journalists are perceived as favoring one political party or the other (e.g., Fox News or MSNBC) and musicians take sides in political fights (e.g., Springsteen endorsing Obama or Wayne Newton endorsing Bachmann), such a claim may have legs.

7th Drug & Medical Device Litigation Forum, 7-8 Mar 2012, Philadelphia

The National Law Review is pleased to inform you of the 7th Drug & Medical Device Litigation Forum: Implementing Appropriate Litigation Readiness and Costs Management Policies That Ensure An Effective Defense at Trial

Drug & Medical Device Litigation Forum 2012

Event Date: 7-8 Mar 2012

Location: Philadelphia, PA, United States

Key conference topics

Mitigate and maintain costs associated with litigation

Gain judical insight on drug and medical litigation and its recent developments

Build better relationships with outside counsel in order to reduce the miscommunciation factor

Understand the limitations of marketing and advertising as it relates to emerging social media issues

Learn the latest on medical device product liability

Conference focus

Pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers have faced a growing array of legal challenges this year. With the increase of mass tort litigation, as it relates to product liability, pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers must be prepared to defend the increasingly sophisticated, well-funded and multi-jurisdictional product liability campaigns against their companies.

The 7^th Drug and Medical Device Litigation Conference will be a two-day, industry focused event specific to those within Drug & Medical Device Litigation, Product Liability and Regulatory Affairs in the Medical Device, Biotech and Pharmaceutical industries.

By attending this event, industry leaders will share best practices, strategies and tools on incorporating litigation readiness, utilizing cost efficient litigation strategies and accurately managing policies to ensure an effective defense at trial.

Attending This Event Will Enable You to:
1. Review the current landscape of drug and medical device litigation
2. Learn strategies in settlements and mass tort issues
3. Manage litigation expenses in order to effectively manage costs
4. Review recent case rulings, including the Mensing and Levine cases
5. Take a view from the bench: explore drug and medical device litigation
from a judicial point of view
6. Tackle product liability issues and challenges
7. Uncover the risks for drug and medical device companies when leveraging social media for marketing and advertising campaigns

With a one-track focus, the 7^th Drug and Medical Device Litigation Conference is a highly intensive, content-driven event that includes case studies, presentations and panel discussions over two full days.

This is not a trade show; our Drug and Medical Device Litigation conference series is targeted at a focused group of senior level leaders to maintain an intimate atmosphere for the delegates and speakers. Since we are not a vendor driven conference, the higher level focus allows delegates to network with their industry peers.

Testimonials:

“Great selection & breadth of speakers. Uniformly high quality of presentations. Intimate nature of meeting provided excellent opportunities for networking” – Abbott

“Great venue to learn and exchange best practices. More importantly how to leverage lesions learned from others.” – Baxter

“One of the best meetings I’ve attended. Excellent organization, topics and speakers. Overall extremely well done.” – Sanofi Aventis

marcusevans

The National Law Forum

Section 550 of the Bankruptcy Code Won’t Cap the Flow of Avoidance Action Liability

Like this:

Cutting Edge Issues in Asbestos Litigation Conference

Like this: