Insights

Washington – January 10, 2024: Crowell & Moring has published Litigation Forecast 2024: What Corporate Counsel Need to Know for the Coming Year. The 12th-annual Litigation Forecast focuses on trends in intellectual property, regulatory and other U.S. litigation, with special coverage of supply chain recovery and international litigation.

Orange County – June 18, 2019: Lawrence J. (Joe) Lines, most recently litigation counsel for General Motors, has joined Crowell & Moring’s Orange County office as a senior counsel in the firm’s Antitrust Group. Lines will represent corporate clients in antitrust recovery matters and advise large manufacturers and Fortune 500 legal departments on strategies to strengthen their affirmative recovery programs.

Washington – February 22, 2019: Crowell & Moring LLP’s Antitrust Group has again been recognized as “Highly Recommended” in Global Competition Review’s (GCR) 19th edition of the “GCR 100” – the leading ranking of the world’s competition policy law and economics practices. This marks the fourth year in a row in which the firm was ranked as “Highly Recommended” in Washington, D.C. and New York. Additionally, the group was ranked as “Recommended” in California. GCR is the leading international journal of competition policy and regulation.

On Tuesday, July 11, the Michigan Supreme Court issued a decision that could have profound impacts on the purchase and supply of automotive and other manufactured component parts under contracts governed by Michigan law. In MSSC, Inc. v. Airboss Flexible Products Co., Michigan’s high court found an automotive Tier 1 supplier’s purchase order contract unenforceable to compel future production from its supplier because the purchase order did not specify a quantity of parts to be supplied. In doing so, the Court formally titled a previously unnamed variation on a supply contract—the “release-by-release contract.”

In today’s tightly interwoven supply chains, a problem with the timely delivery or performance of components and parts provided by a supplier can have a big impact on a manufacturer, potentially causing production disruptions, reputational harm, costly recalls, and warranty claims. This is leading to more disputes over contract terms, the price and performance of parts and, in some cases, litigation. But a manufacturer need not shoulder the burden of these disputes alone. It can seek, and often achieve, the recovery of funds, all while taking care to manage its often delicate and valuable supplier relationships.

In recent years, 75% of Fortune 500 companies were plaintiffs in recovery matters. Many of those and other large companies have developed affirmative recovery programs and have dedicated resources in legal and procurement to recoup the value of affirmative opportunities created by the business. As in-house counsel and legal departments seek to bring added value in the current corporate environment, a mature and comprehensive program can generate multiple significant recoveries annually. But, as in-house counsel and departments are already stretched, how do you navigate the dynamic world of affirmative recovery to start or grow a program?

In recent years, 75% of Fortune 500 companies were plaintiffs in recovery matters. Many of those and other large companies have developed affirmative recovery programs and have dedicated resources in legal and procurement to recoup the value of affirmative opportunities created by the business. As in-house counsel and legal departments seek to bring added value in the current corporate environment, a mature and comprehensive program can generate multiple significant recoveries annually. But, as in-house counsel and departments are already stretched, how do you navigate the dynamic world of affirmative recovery to start or grow a program?