Toyota Recall Lawyers Appointed to Leadership Roles in Federal Litigation – AboutLawsuits.com

U.S. District Judge James Selna, who is presiding over the federal Toyota litigation, has appointed 21 plaintiffs’ lawyers to serve in leadership roles in the multidistrict litigation (MDL). The Toyota recall lawyers will perform actions during pretrial proceedings that will benefit all plaintiffs who have filed a product liability lawsuit in federal courts throughout the United States over sudden acceleration problems with Toyota or Lexus vehicles.

Following the recall of millions of vehicles in recent months, a growing number of Toyota class action lawsuits, Toyota accident injury lawsuits and wrongful death lawsuits have been filed in state and federal courts throughout the United States.

Last month, all federal Toyota lawsuits were consolidated and centralized before Judge Selna as part of a multidistrict litigation (MDL) for pretrial proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. There are now about 228 federal lawsuits over recalled Toyota vehicles included in the MDL, and there are nearly 100 other lawsuits pending in state courts nationwide.

The litigation comprises of two types of claims: lawsuits alleging that defective Toyota or Lexus vehicles caused a personal injury or death to plaintiffs or their loved ones, and lawsuits claiming that the vehicles lost significant value due to the massive recalls and concerns about the safety.

As part of the coordinated pretrial proceedings, Judge Selna issued an order on May 14 creating two separate committees of lawyers representing the various plaintiffs. Each of the committees will have nine lawyers involved in the Toyota recall litigation, including the lead counsels.

The lead Toyota recall attorneys for the economic loss committee will be Steve Berman, Marc M. Seltzer and Frank Pitre. The lead Toyota personal injury lawyers will be Elizabeth Cabraser, and Mark P. Robinson. The lead counsels will act as spokespersons for all plaintiffs at pretrial hearings and in response to inquiries from the court. They will also submit and argue motions before the court, examine witnesses at hearings and negotiate stipulations and potential Toyota settlement agreements with the defendants, which would apply to all cases.

Judge Selna has also appointed Wylie Aitken, Dawn Barrios and Gretchen M. Nelson to serve as Liaison Counsel. As Liaison Counsel, they will receive and distribute orders from the Court and documents from opposing counsel, and assist in the coordination of activities between both parties.

via Toyota Recall Lawyers Appointed to Leadership Roles in Federal Litigation – AboutLawsuits.com.

LinkedInPinterestEvernoteWordPressBlogger PostEmailShare

Toyota Lawsuit Judge Names Lead Attorneys for Cases – BusinessWeek

The federal judge overseeing sudden- acceleration lawsuits against Toyota Motor Corp. appointed 21 plaintiffs’ lawyers to manage litigation involving U.S. claims.

Toyota, the world’s largest automaker, faces at least 228 federal and 99 state lawsuits including proposed class actions over economic loss and claims of personal injuries or deaths caused by sudden-acceleration incidents. The federal lawsuits were combined April 9 in a multidistrict litigation, or MDL, before U.S. District Judge James V. Selna in Santa Ana, California.

More than 70 plaintiffs’ lawyers sought appointments to leadership positions in the federal lawsuits, including about 60 who spoke at a hearing before Selna yesterday.

Selna’s appointments today include Steve Berman at Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP in Seattle as co-lead counsel for economic loss plaintiffs and Elizabeth Cabraser at Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP in San Francisco as co-lead for personal injury and death cases.

via Toyota Lawsuit Judge Names Lead Attorneys for Cases (Update1) – BusinessWeek.

LinkedInPinterestEvernoteWordPressBlogger PostEmailShare

Israel Tech Deals: IP Laws Power Nano-Nation | Westlaw Business

IP pours forth from Israel, boosting both M&A and legal activity centered on technology. Companies like CheckPoint, Teva and Vishay are the result. IP creation is driven by its IP-fostering laws, its benign IP litigation context (benign being relative), and the noted inventiveness of its citizenry.

For those unfamiliar with the good-news story emanating from this part of the Middle East: Nearly 62 years ago, “nano” nation Israel was born. Notwithstanding its barely-hospitable environment, this nation has transformed itself into a virtual high tech powerhouse. Fostered in part by government agencies, it’ become a global leader in communications, electronics, and the life sciences, among others.

This article explores the legal framework applicable to Israel’s technology transfer regime, how it impacts intellectual property (“IP”) acquisitions by non-Israeli entities, and briefly examines the Israeli litigation landscape surrounding its technology.

via Israel Tech Deals: IP Laws Power Nano-Nation.

LinkedInPinterestEvernoteWordPressBlogger PostEmailShare

Transocean Asks to Cap Rig Liability at $26.7 Million – BusinessWeek

Transocean Ltd., the owner and operator of the oil rig leased to BP Plc which exploded last month and killed 11 men, has asked a U.S. judge to limit its liability to $26.7 million.

The request, filed today in Houston federal court under a 150-year-old law originally designed for the shipping industry, applies to all litigation the company faces over the explosion and spill.

“I think there are more than 100 cases now,’’ Guy Cantwell, Transocean’s spokesman, said in a telephone interview.

Transocean and co-owners of the Deepwater Horizon, which now lies wrecked a mile deep in the Gulf of Mexico, say the state-of-the-art drilling rig has zero present value and had accrued $26.7 million in unpaid drilling rental fees.

The company also asked for all litigation against the rig owners to be consolidated before one federal judge in Houston, where Transocean’s U.S. operations are based. Vernier, Switzerland-based Transocean said it would create a court- administered fund, equal to the amount of the unpaid drilling fees, from which all claims against the company could be paid on a pro-rata basis.

Lawyers for victims of the rig disaster and spill said that while Transocean’s move to limit its liability probably wouldn’t succeed, it could cause the oil spill litigation to be consolidated into a single multidistrict proceeding in Houston federal court, as BP has also requested.

via Transocean Asks to Cap Rig Liability at $26.7 Million (Update3) – BusinessWeek.

LinkedInPinterestEvernoteWordPressBlogger PostEmailShare

Show Us the Love to Avoid Discovery Fights, Attorneys Urge | National Law Journal

The present location of the Duke University Sc...
Image via Wikipedia

Attorneys were blunt during a litigation conference at Duke University School of Law about what they need from judges and opposing counsel to fix trial practice in federal courts.

“We’d all be a lot happier if we had some romancing foreplay pre-trial and left the rough stuff for trial,” said Ariana Tadler, a partner in the New York office Milberg LLP.

Tadler, speaking about cooperation between attorneys “on both sides of the v.,” participated in a six-member panel discussion of what works and what doesn’t in the federal courts. The presentation took place on Tuesday, the second and final day of the 2010 Conference on Civil Litigation, sponsored mainly by the U.S. Judicial Conference‘s Advisory Committee on Civil Rules.

The conference focused on whether changes to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are needed to resolve cases more efficiently and justly. The consensus emerging among conference participants was that large-scale revisions to the rules are not necessary. Rather, most practitioners agreed that what’s needed is better judicial management of cases. Many also wanted to see a tailoring of procedural rules according to the specific kind of case — so-called nontransubstantive rules.

Pfizer Inc. general counsel Amy Schulman agreed that cooperation between opposing counsel helps all parties, but she said that corporate defendants involved in high-stakes cases are often mischaracterized.

“There’s this fundamental notion that we don’t want to play fair,” Schulman said to the crowd of about 150 federal judges, large-firm defense counsel, plaintiffs attorneys and legal scholars. Schulman said her position when confronting a lawsuit against the company was simple: “Sometimes we do things wrong. When we do, we settle cases.” In cases that have “grey areas,” she said, “we want is to know that the system is operating fairly.”

Plaintiffs and defense attorneys in attendance repeatedly urged judges to take a more active role in guiding discovery, especially electronic discovery.

via Law.com – Show Us the Love to Avoid Discovery Fights, Attorneys Urge.

LinkedInPinterestEvernoteWordPressBlogger PostEmailShare

5 things you should know about litigation vs. arbitration | Lexology.com

The London Court of International Arbitration
Image via Wikipedia

When deciding whether to agree to arbitration in your next automation contract, keep in mind the following differences between resolving disputes via the traditional litigation process versus arbitration:

  • Arbitration can be cheaper and faster. The general rule is that arbitration is a faster and more streamlined process, making it cheaper than the typical litigation process in most, but not all, cases.
  • Possibility of knowledgeable arbitrator. Because of the way an arbitrator is chosen, the parties can agree to an arbitrator who has specialized knowledge, which can be an advantage when technical issues are involved.
  • Very limited appeal rights in arbitration. The parties generally have to abide by an arbitrator’s decision, even if it is wrong. Cases that are litigated can be appealed and reversed.
  • Limited consolidation in arbitration. In a typical court case, all parties who may be involved in or contributed to a dispute can be compelled to join one lawsuit. In arbitration, parties cannot be made to join in someone else’s arbitration process unless they agree.
  • No jury in arbitration. There is no right to a jury trial in arbitration. Instead, disputes decided in arbitration will often be decided by one arbitrator

via Lexology – 5 things you should know about litigation vs. arbitration.

LinkedInPinterestEvernoteWordPressBlogger PostEmailShare

‘Litigation prenup’ can help avoid nasty disputes |Wisconsin Law Journal

The concept of efficient litigation may seem a bit foreign to attorneys.

“It’s been the Holy Grail,” said Milwaukee lawyer Paul F. Heaton.

To that end, Heaton and others are embracing an evolving concept which attempts to curb litigation costs prior to trial.

An agreement in advance of a dispute, or “litigation prenup,” can set parameters for expensive elements involved in a trial such as dispositive motions or discovery.

“A lot of times attorneys do this in bits and pieces along the way, but why not take a comprehensive look at the front end,” said Heaton, of Gass Weber Mullins LLC. “Set some rules early in a lawsuit to get where you are going with less conflict and less expense.”

Boston attorney Daniel B. Winslow unveiled a model litigation prenup agreement at a Pepperdine University School of Law conference last month.

His case management format includes an underlying contract at the start of a business relationship which defines things like discovery limits and fee shifting.

The economical litigation agreement could be a “game-changer” for lawyers and business as it seeks to implement some proportionality and limitations on litigation.

“Right now you have an open-ended process,” said Winslow, of Proskauer Rose LLP. “This allows you to predetermine to the dollar what a particular case will cost, whether it’s billable hours or a fixed fee.”

via Wisconsin Law Journal – Article.

LinkedInPinterestEvernoteWordPressBlogger PostEmailShare

Global Disclosures: Litigation Risk | Westlaw Business Currents

For most U.S. trained attorneys, it probably doesn’t come as a surprise that even the mere possibility of litigation should be disclosed somewhere in a company’s annual report. But for attorneys preparing an annual report for a foreign filer from a less litigious country – basically every other country – take note this 20F/40F season: Companies are erring on the side of conservatism when it comes to litigation risk. Companies from camera manufacturer Canon to mobile phone manufacturer Ericsson to Norwegian oil company Statoil are disclosing risks ranging from IP litigation to uncertainty in certain target markets, to dealing with wrongful termination allegations. While litigation disclosures are certainly not one-size fits all, below are a few of the themes rising up through this 20F/40F filing season.

General litigation risk disclosures come in every shape and size, but a pretty standard example comes from Italian oil and natural gas company Eni SpA. In their recent 20F, however, they stated that lawsuits are an ordinary occurrence in their line of business. A similar disclosure appears in the recent annual report from Newfoundland-based Canadian mineral royalty company Terra Nova Royalty Corp.

And although materiality should play a factor in determining whether to disclose, every lawsuit should be reviewed to determine the potential impact. A prime example is British Columbia, Canada-based Chai Na Ta’s recent admission that the company became involved in a lawsuit related to an automobile accident. Although the company believes that insurance will fully indemnify the company, the disclosure serves as an example that no rock should remain unturned in the quest for transparency. Likewise, Norwegian Statoil discusses in detail two lawsuits, one of which explicitly states the financial impact is immaterial.

via Global Disclosures: Litigation Risk.

LinkedInPinterestEvernoteWordPressBlogger PostEmailShare

Lawyers Vie For Lead Roles in Toyota Suits | Orange County Business Journal

Mark Robinson of Newport Beach’s Robinson, Calcagnie & Robinson Inc. and Wylie Aitken of Santa Ana’s Aitken Aitken Cohn are among those seeking to lead Toyota litigation being consolidated in Santa Ana.

Federal Judge James Selna on Thursday is expected to select a committee of lawyers to lead suits against Toyota’s U.S. arm in Torrance. He’s expected to pick from more than 100 lawyers vying for an expected five lead spots. More than a dozen other lawyers are set to be tapped for supporting roles.

“This is obviously going to be a very major case involving a tremendous amount of legal talent,” said Aitken, founder of Aitken Aitken Cohn.

At stake is a pot of money estimated at $200 million to $500 million in lawyers fees that would be split among the lead and supporting lawyers.

Robinson, senior partner at Robinson, Calcagnie & Robinson, has applied to lead personal injury litigation against Toyota. He and other lawyers submitted their bids last month.

Judge Selna has “given criteria in his order and a lot of people have applied,” Robinson said. “We’ll see what happens.”

Aitken has applied to lead litigation related to the economic impact of Toyota’s recalls. Lawsuits there charge that Toyota vehicles lost value for owners and dealers after recall.

via Lawyers Vie For Lead Roles in Toyota Suits | Orange County Business Journal.

LinkedInPinterestEvernoteWordPressBlogger PostEmailShare

Global Disclosures: Litigation Risk

As this year’s foreign private issuer annual reports are now coming in to the SEC, we at Westlaw Business see it as our job to keep you informed of issues and events, based on SEC correspondence, and other related documents, that may impact your filings. To help you prepare your disclosures, we’ve begun this series covering the 20-F/40-F considerations that are most important to global businesses this year.

For most U.S. trained attorneys, it probably doesn’t come as a surprise that even the mere possibility of litigation should be disclosed somewhere in a company’s annual report. But for attorneys preparing an annual report for a foreign filer from a less litigious country – basically every other country – take note this 20F/40F season: Companies are erring on the side of conservatism when it comes to litigation risk. Companies from camera manufacturer Canon to mobile phone manufacturer Ericsson to Norwegian oil company Statoil are disclosing risks ranging from IP litigation to uncertainty in certain target markets, to dealing with wrongful termination allegations. While litigation disclosures are certainly not one-size fits all, below are a few of the themes rising up through this 20F/40F filing season.

General litigation risk disclosures come in every shape and size, but a pretty standard example comes from Italian oil and natural gas company Eni SpA. In their recent 20F, however, they stated that lawsuits are an ordinary occurrence in their line of business. A similar disclosure appears in the recent annual report from Newfoundland-based Canadian mineral royalty company Terra Nova Royalty Corp.

And although materiality should play a factor in determining whether to disclose, every lawsuit should be reviewed to determine the potential impact. A prime example is British Columbia, Canada-based Chai Na Ta’s recent admission that the company became involved in a lawsuit related to an automobile accident. Although the company believes that insurance will fully indemnify the company, the disclosure serves as an example that no rock should remain unturned in the quest for transparency. Likewise, Norwegian Statoil discusses in detail two lawsuits, one of which explicitly states the financial impact is immaterial.

via Global Disclosures: Litigation Risk.

LinkedInPinterestEvernoteWordPressBlogger PostEmailShare