North America: Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration

The False Claims Act’s qui tam provisions are among the federal government’s most important tools for identifying and pursuing alleged fraud involving Medicare, Medicaid, federal health care programs and other government funds. The statute permits a private individual, known as a relator, to bring a False Claims Act action “for the person and for the United States Government” in the name of the government.

The Mortgage Bankers Association has filed a federal lawsuit challenging New Jersey's disparate impact discrimination rules, arguing they lack constitutional safeguards and conflict with federal law. The complaint asserts the rules impose unrecoverable compliance costs on lenders and create operational burdens by requiring different policies across states.

A mutual fund dealing representative sued the MFDA and OSC for $47.5 million in damages, alleging intentional torts including conspiracy, abuse of process, and malicious prosecution stemming from a regulatory investigation and enforcement proceedings. The 21-day trial resulted in complete dismissal of all claims, with the court making significant findings on regulatory immunity provisions and the scope of duties owed by securities regulators to regulated persons.

The Washington Court of Appeals affirmed a trial court's denial of an employer's motion to compel arbitration in a wage and hour class action, finding the arbitration agreement procedurally unconscionable. The ruling examines how employers present arbitration agreements to employees and whether workers receive meaningful opportunity to understand terms before signing, with significant implications for class action litigation strategy.

Recent trade secret case law reveals critical standards for proving misappropriation, from the Ninth Circuit's reversal of a $57 million judgment over incorrect jury instructions on the "not readily ascertainable" element, to the Eighth Circuit's requirements for adequate trade secret identification. Courts continue to refine extraterritorial application of the DTSA and standards for demonstrating actual use of allegedly misappropriated information.

The False Claims Act’s qui tam provisions are among the federal government’s most important tools for identifying and pursuing alleged fraud involving Medicare, Medicaid, federal health care programs and other government funds. The statute permits a private individual, known as a relator, to bring a False Claims Act action “for the person and for the United States Government” in the name of the government.

Recent trade secret case law reveals critical standards for proving misappropriation, from the Ninth Circuit's reversal of a $57 million judgment over incorrect jury instructions on the "not readily ascertainable" element, to the Eighth Circuit's requirements for adequate trade secret identification. Courts continue to refine extraterritorial application of the DTSA and standards for demonstrating actual use of allegedly misappropriated information.

The Ontario Court of Appeal recently released its decision in Wigdor v. Facebook Canada Ltd., addressing two significant issues for Ontario employers: the enforceability of termination clauses that purport to limit an employee's entitlements, and the application of the Employment Standards Act, 2000 (ESA) to equity-based compensation documents such as Restricted Stock Unit (RSU) agreements.

Wealth that has taken a lifetime to build deserves careful stewardship and thoughtful legal protection. Offshore trusts, when properly structured, remain among the most recognised instruments available for this purpose, enabling families to preserve assets across generations, provide for their loved ones, and make sure the plans they put in place today are honoured well into the future. This article looks at how two leading jurisdictions, the British Virgin Islands and Nevis, approach that goal, and what each offers individuals and families seeking lasting, lawfully grounded protection for their wealth.

For hundreds of years, the world’s sovereign nations refused to allow any other foreign sovereign to be sued in their courts without the sovereign’s consent. The guiding principle was “absolute sovereign immunity,” an outgrowth of the ancient legal precept rex non potest peccare, understood to mean “the king can do no wrong.” The principle also was recognized as wise foreign policy because it extended "grace and comity" to other sovereigns.

Recent federal court decisions are reshaping the landscape of personal jurisdiction and enforcement of international arbitration awards following the Supreme Court's landmark ruling in Fuld v. Palestine Liberation Organization. The DC and Ninth Circuits have issued critical opinions clarifying how Fifth Amendment due process standards apply differently than traditional Fourteenth Amendment minimum contacts analysis, particularly in cases involving foreign sovereigns and international arbitration. These deve

The Texas Supreme Court's decision in Paxton v. City of Austin reveals a procedural trap for businesses suing the government: winning the right to be heard can paradoxically freeze the entire case. When governmental defendants challenge a court's jurisdiction and lose, they can immediately appeal, putting all proceedings on hold—potentially for months or years.