()

Brought to you free by Withum Smith & Brown

View the Digital Edition of this Special Report.

What’s in a Name: The NAD Knows

Nancy J. Felsten of Davis Wright Tremaine tackles the question: When is the name of a product or service also an advertising claim within the National Advertising Division’s jurisdiction, such that NAD can “recommend” a name change despite the absence of the full evidentiary record that would be the mainstay of a federal court action?

NYDFS Cybersecurity Requirements for Financial Services Companies

Robert D. Owen, Matt Gatewood and Trevor J. Satnick of Sutherland Asbill & Brennan discuss a proposal in New York that would proactively require “Covered Entities” and third parties to enact a uniform, structured set of minimum cybersecurity requirements, eschewing typical state and federal statutory language that requires an entity merely to enact “reasonable policies and procedures.”

In Bankruptcy, Attorney-Client Privilege Is Not Absolute

Eric Snyder and Eloy Peral of Wilk Auslander address two ways in which a debtor can lose the right to assert the attorney-client privilege, and similarly how creditors, trustees, and interested parties can succeed in obtaining privileged communications during the bankruptcy proceeding.

Preservation of Issues Is a Prerequisite for Appellate Review

Joseph P. Sullivan of Holland & Knight discusses the decision in ‘Misicki’, which adopted a sensible and practical rule in limiting invocation of the preservation requirement and its exception to a party in an adversary position in litigation.

Arbitration of Workplace Sexual Harassment and Discrimination Claims

Martin S. Hyman and Matthew C. Daly of Golenbock Eiseman Assor Bell & Peskoe analyze case law addressing the issues that arise when non-signatory senior employees are sued for sexual harassment or discrimination.

Rule Governing Offers of Judgment Should Be Clarified Following Split SCOTUS Decisions

Alexander Pilmer of Kirkland & Ellis writes: Given the recent flurry of litigation over Rule 68, repeated statements from the Justices that plaintiffs should not be able to litigate simply because they want to, and the benefits to the judicial system from eliminating cases that defendants are willing to pay to end, Rule 68 is ripe for amendment.