RISKY REQUESTS - A bipartisan push in Congress for greater transparency on federal judges’ financial ties, a proposed rule change for amicus filers and a vow by Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. to ensure the judiciary’s compliance with ethics canons could soon combine to cause an uptick in recusals and disqualifications. But, as we explore in the latest Law.com Litigation Trendspotter column, just because a litigator can push for a judge’s recusal, it doesn’t necessarily mean they should. After all, a rejected (or even begrudgingly granted) bid to swap out the judge presiding over your case could still turn awkward real quick. I’m interested to get your thoughts: What factors should litigators and their clients consider when deciding whether to seek a judge’s recusal? Let me know at [email protected].
MULLING A MERGER MAKEOVER - The U.S. Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission want to revamp their guidelines for reviewing corporate mergers, and they are asking for the public’s feedback. But this isn’t like when the cellphone company asks you for your thoughts on their customer service—the feedback here could actually impact how business is conducted. As Law.com’s Nate Robson writes in this week’s Law.com Barometer newsletter, any potential change to the guidelines could increase the scope of mergers that the government might challenge, especially at a time when there is bipartisan support on Capitol Hill to reevaluate antitrust laws. Attorneys following antitrust enforcement generally expect the policies being reviewed to become the future of enforcement within the Biden administration and potentially long after the administration changes hands. To receive the Law.com Barometer directly to your inbox each week, click here.
SHORT-STAFFED AND SHORT-CHANGED? - Williams Mullen filed a breach-of-contract lawsuit Thursday in Virginia Eastern District Court on behalf of AB Staffing Solutions and World Wide Medical claiming over $60 million in damages. The complaint, which targets ACI Federal, arises from an agreement to provide medical staffing to Idaho and Washington states in order to alleviate staffing shortages amid COVID-19. The complaint accuses the defendants of failing to process invoices to the government properly and failing to disburse funds. Counsel have not yet appeared for the defendant. The case is 3:22-cv-00032, AB Staffing Solutions, LLC et al v. Asefi Capital, Inc. d/b/a ACI Federal. Stay up on the latest deals and litigation with the new Law.com Radar.
WHILE YOU WERE SLEEPING
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]