Insights

Washington – August 17, 2023: The 2024 edition of The Best Lawyers in America® has recognized 47 firm lawyers as "Best Lawyers" and 41 lawyers as “Ones to Watch.”

Washington – January 3, 2022: Crowell & Moring elected 13 lawyers to the firm’s partnership, effective January 1, 2022. The firm also promoted seven to the position of senior counsel and 19 associates to the position of counsel. The new partners have been promoted from within the ranks of the firm’s London, New York, and Washington, D.C. offices and from across several practice groups, including Advertising & Media; Antitrust & Competition; Corporate; Energy; Environment & Natural Resources; Government Contracts; Health Care; Technology & Intellectual Property; International Dispute Resolution; Litigation; Mass Tort, Product, and Consumer Litigation; and Privacy & Cybersecurity.

New York – April 10, 2020: In February 2019, Future Proof Brands LLC filed a trademark infringement lawsuit against Crowell & Moring client Molson Coors Beverage Co. and requested a preliminary injunction to bar it from selling or marketing its new Vizzy hard seltzer, citing a November 2018 trademark application for the name Brizzy. On March 25, 2020, U.S. District Judge James R. Nowlin denied Future Proof’s motion.

The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey adopted a new local rule, starting on June 21, 2021, requiring disclosure by litigants regarding the use of litigation funding. While several federal courts have implemented rules requiring disclosure of the existence and identity of litigation funders, New Jersey’s rule goes much further, requiring all parties to further disclose:

COVID-19 has disrupted and will continue disrupting supply chains in many important ways, as suppliers, carriers and buyers navigate the global pandemic. But does the pandemic allow activation of force majeure clauses in your contracts? If a force majeure clause is activated, what are the rights and responsibilities of each party during the pandemic? When does performance restart and how? And, what if there is a dispute?

The impacts of COVID-19 are rapidly evolving and quickly disrupting business operations. If they haven’t already done so, many businesses are deciding whether to activate contractual force majeure clauses or looking to other doctrines that may excuse non-performance. While many businesses during this global pandemic may want to address performance disruptions amicably to the extent possible, understanding how disputes over force majeure clauses are decided allows a business to act strategically. This is true whether you are the party seeking damages for non-performance or invoking a defense to performance. Even with a well-crafted force majeure clause, parties can disagree about whether the defense applies, what the implications are to continued performance, and what damages, if any, are recoverable. While each dispute is highly fact-specific and likely to be affected by the language of the contract and governing law, we provide guidance below on the factors most likely to be relevant to resolution of the dispute.

Many businesses are invoking force majeure and related legal doctrines to suspend performance in the wake of the global pandemic. Even if the dispute will likely be resolved amicably, understanding and protecting your rights is critical to the best outcome. Join Crowell & Moring litigators as they explore key issues in force majeure disputes and how to position your company for success at the negotiating table, in court, or in arbitration.

Join us for a discussion addressing those issues facing businesses as they prepare to resume performance of contracts that has been disrupted by the pandemic and its impacts: options for termination, whether and when resumption of performance is required, and whether to provide notice of the end of the disruption.