Constitutional Law/Mass Tort Law

Alison Frankel at AmLaw published today this significant story on the continuing impact of the limited thinking jurisdictional thinking embodied in the  Morrison securities law decision. The article tees off from a new ruling in which a US federal judge invoked Morrison to hold that the US Justice Department cannot enforce previously won injunctive,  RICO-based  relief against global tort giant British American Tobacco.

Nicastro and Goodyear are two pending cases addressing the scope of personal jurisdiction over global manufacturers when they sell allegedly defective products. Here, Crowell & Moring provides its take on the issues and argument. For those who would like more specifics, the Scotus Blog remains great. Go here for the Nicasto oral argument

The "Justice Roberts court" continues to garner attention and devotion from conservatives, and to rule in favor of businesses. A new summary article by Roger Parloff is here, in Fortune  

As one would expect from a Fortune writer, Mr. Parloff often writes from the perspective of  business-friendly positions, and as a critic of plaintiff’s lawyers, as

The Supreme Court acted in unusual fashion yesterday on Chrysler, and the actions create some issues that need further thought as to their implications for underlying tort claimants and for due process. Specifically, in this order, the Court granted certiorari, but then immediately vacated the judgment and AND vacated as moot the Second Circuit’s

This post offers a brief comment arising from the now widely reported fact (see, for example, SCOTUSblog and many others) that the U. S. Supreme Court granted certiorari from the 2d Circuit’s opinion in the so-called foreign-cubed (a/k/a f- cubed) Rule 10b-5 securities case titled Morrison, et al., v. National Australia Bank, et al. (08-1191),

So, where and when are US tort and securities judgments binding on persons who live outside the US, and why should does it matter? Let’s start with the latter question – why does it matter. Suppose, for example, a US bankrupcty court purports to enter a global injunction that bars future asbestos claims that anyone

The Supreme Court’s Manville/Travelers opinion was quite narrow (some might say advisory) and resulted in a remand of the case to the 2d Circuit to decide the extent to which the prior rulings are binding on various entities. As per this online docket, the Travelers/Manville argument on remand is set for oral argument

As a result of bugging the clerk’s office and the court reporter’s office, the transparency-blocking 90 day veil has now been lifted from some of the General Motors bankruptcy hearing transcripts.

Here is the June 25, 2009 transcript that reflects the asbestos plaintiff’s lawyers withdrawing the request for appointment of a futures representative. The withdrawal