United States: Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration

Organizations are increasingly turning to AI tools to streamline the preparation of corporate meeting minutes, but this technological shift brings both promising efficiencies and significant legal risks. From privilege concerns to data security vulnerabilities, the gap between AI-generated transcripts and carefully curated official records raises critical questions about governance, liability, and best practices.

When legal issues arise, many New Jersey businesses default to a "no comment" stance, believing silence protects them from liability. However, this approach can allow allegations to go unanswered, critical deadlines to pass, and manageable disputes to escalate into costly litigation. Understanding when silence serves your interests versus when it creates unnecessary risk is essential for protecting your business.

When an internal investigation surfaces just before a filing deadline, how a company engages its external auditor in those critical first days can determine whether it meets regulatory requirements.

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.

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.

As artificial intelligence reshapes corporate marketing, .ai domain names have become prime digital real estate worth millions. A recent WIPO ruling in a high-profile dispute between a combat sports brand and a domain investor reveals critical lessons about trademark rights, bad faith claims, and the limits of domain seizure policies in the booming AI domain market.

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.

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.