Insights

Washington, D.C. – January 13, 2015: Crowell & Moring LLP is pleased to announce the publication of its third annual "Litigation Forecast: What Corporate Counsel Need to Know in the Coming Year," and the introduction of its first-ever "Regulatory Forecast 2015: What Corporate Counsel Need to Know in the Coming Year."

Washington, D.C. – June 24, 2013: Crowell & Moring LLP is pleased to announce that it has been named by the National Law Journal (NLJ) as the "Washington, DC Litigation Department of the Year" in the "General Civil Litigation" category. In its special report, the NLJ editorial team evaluated litigation departments in the nation's capital based on several criteria including operations, headcounts, revenues, and biggest wins. As a result of their research and findings, the team selected six "excellent firms" in this first-ever, Washington, D.C.-based contest. "We are honored to be recognized for excellence based on our litigation, trial, and appellate results that have a distinct Washington, D.C. component – cases that can't be won in the court alone but require deep knowledge of the political and regulatory landscapes that offer clients the best solutions," said Crowell & Moring Chairman Kent A. Gardiner. "We have extremely talented and formidable litigators and  regulatory experts, and that team has made us a go-to law firm for clients facing complex, high stakes litigation."

Washington, D.C. – October 5, 2011: Crowell & Moring LLP is pleased to invite members of the media and industry to attend its one-day seminar, “Product Risk Management: A Product Lifecycle Approach to Identifying, Mitigating and Managing Legal Risks,” on October 19, 2011, from 8:45 a.m. – 4:45 p.m. at the firm’s offices in Washington, D.C. As regulatory compliance and enforcement risks for industry have increased, this one-day event for manufacturers and suppliers will feature insights from business executives, in-house counsel, and Washington agency officials.

On January 17, 2020, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the climate change case Juliana v. United States to the Oregon district court with instructions to dismiss. Plaintiffs, a group of children from across the country joined by climate change advocates, filed the lawsuit in 2015, accusing the federal government of causing alleged climate change-related injuries by permitting, authorizing, and subsidizing fossil fuel use. Plaintiffs did not seek damages, claim a violation of statute or regulation, or assert a procedural right. Instead, they asserted a number of constitutional claims, including the right to a “climate system capable of sustaining human life,” as well as claims under the public trust doctrine. While conceding that their requested relief would not alone solve global climate change, plaintiffs asked the court to declare that the federal government violated their constitutional and public trust rights and issue an order enjoining the federal government from supporting fossil fuel use and directing it to prepare a national remedial plan to phase out fossil fuel emissions.

On March 27, 2013, in Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, the Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that a class cannot be certified under Rule 23(b)(3) unless plaintiffs prove that they can calculate damages on a classwide basis, and that the proposed damages methodology isolates damages to the specific theory of harm for which the class is certified. Building on its decision in Wal-Mart v. Dukes, the Court confirmed that the analytical principles it articulated for determining whether the Rule 23(a) factors are satisfied apply equally—if not more so—to Rule 23(b), particularly because Rule 23(b)(3)'s predominance prong is more demanding. In finding that the district court had improperly certified the class, the Court reaffirmed that a court cannot sidestep the mandated rigorous analysis required for class certification under Rule 23 simply because the inquiry would also be relevant to the merits determination.  

In the National Law Journal (NLJ) special report "Washington Litigation Departments of the Year," Crowell & Moring was named "Department of the Year" in the "General Civil Litigation" category. For this report, the NLJ editorial team evaluated litigation departments in the nation's capital based on several criteria including biggest wins, revenues, headcounts, and operations. As a result of their research and findings, the team selected six "excellent firms" in this first-ever, Washington, D.C.-based contest. When asked about the firm's key to success, firm chairman and Washington, D.C.-based partner, Kent Gardiner, remarked, "Clients bet on us because we bet on ourselves to win for them, and we collaborate to structure our fees around our ability to achieve success as they define it."

In 2017, MCO’s will need to deal with myriad changes to the Affordable Care Act and the DOJ’s latest enforcement priorities under the country’s new administration. Disputes between providers and payors have also taken on unique new angles creating an urgent need for updated and more effective litigation strategies. Between trying to keep up with and adapt to the changing regulations in this space and handling the emerging trends in litigation, 2017 will bring many challenges for MCOs and their counsel will need to adapt quickly.  

As a result of recent significant Supreme Court rulings focusing on class actions, new strategies have emerged for defending against and resolving class actions.  This webinar will take an in-depth look at best practices and strategies to dispose of class actions at the early stages of litigation and at class certification, and to achieve court approval for class settlements.