Source: https://cfr.vlex.com/
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 20:51:58+00:00

Document:
“[On] 12 April 2019, Pre-Trial Chamber II of the International Criminal Court (ICC) rejected unanimously the request of the Prosecutor to proceed with an investigation for alleged crimes against humanity and war crimes, on the territory of in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. The judges decided that an investigation into the situation in Afghanistan at this stage would not serve the interests of justice.” See Press Release.
“The Third Circuit recently held that procedural violations of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act ("FACTA"), absent any showing of concrete harm, do not meet Article III standing requirements.” See Article.
On April 12, the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari in the case of Price v. Dunn. The case challenged Alabama’s lethal injection drugs as unconstitutional. See Order.
Last week, the governor of Ohio signed SB 23, which will ban abortions after a heartbeat has been detected. The bill provides for exceptions in the case of medical necessity. The law is set to take effect in 90 days. See Bill.
“On March 20, 2019, the Supreme Court ruled in the case of Obduskey v. McCarthy & Holthus LLP that a law firm that carries out non-judicial foreclosure proceedings would not be considered a "debt collector" pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"), other than for a limited purpose.” See Article.
“In In re Argon Credit, LLC, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Illinois ruled that, in accordance with section 510(a) of the Bankruptcy Code, a standby clause in a subordination agreement prevented a subordinated lender from conducting discovery concerning the senior lender's claims. According to the court, the subordinated lender's efforts to circumvent the clear terms of the subordination agreement by claiming that it was acting on behalf of the bankruptcy estate, or investigating the senior lender's alleged fraud, were unavailing.” See Article.
“On April 5, 2019, a World Trade Organization (WTO) dispute settlement panel issued the first substantive WTO panel decision interpreting the "essential security" provision of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT 1994). The decision, which is still subject to appeal, has significant implications for other important disputes currently pending at the WTO - including the ongoing challenges to the steel and aluminum tariffs that the Trump Administration imposed under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 and the challenge that Qatar is pursuing against the United Arab Emirates (UAE) in connection with the blockade imposed in 2017.” See Article.
“The New York Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, First Department recently confirmed the legality of properly structured litigation financing agreements. In Cash4Cases, Inc. v. Brunetti, the defendant, appealing from the grant of summary judgment in favor of plaintiff Cash4Cases, Inc., which was seeking to enforce the agreement pursuant to which it purchased an interest in the defendant's personal injury litigation, argued that the agreement was usurious and unconscionable given the excessive interest rate. However, the appellate court unanimously affirmed the Supreme Court's judgment in favor of the litigation funder, rejecting both arguments.” See Article.
“On Friday, March 29, the US District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri handed down its decision in Sarasota Wine Market v. Parson. The decision upholds Missouri's laws permitting in-state retailers to sell and deliver directly to consumers' homes, but withholding that same privilege to out-of-state retailers. Plaintiffs had challenged the Missouri statutes under both the so-called "dormant" Commerce Clause and the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Federal Constitution.” See Article.
“[T]he Federal Circuit has reversed a district court's finding of patent ineligibility under Section 101 in the life science space, this time concluding that claims directed to methods of treating pain in renally impaired patients are patent-eligible. In Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., the Federal Circuit again attempted to narrow the Supreme Court's holding in Mayo and strengthen its own precedent that method of treatment claims are directed to patent-eligible subject matter.” See Article.
On April 10, H.R.1644 - Save the Internet Act of 2019, passed the U.S. House by a vote of 232 - 190. This act if passed would “restore the open internet order of the Federal Communications Commission.” See Bill.
“In China Kingdom (Beijing) Import & Export Co. v. United States, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ("Federal Circuit") addressed an issue at the cross-section of subject matter jurisdiction and exhaustion: does a federal court retain subject matter jurisdiction over a dispute if the party challenging the agency action failed to exhaust its administrative remedies? Yes, says the Federal Circuit.” See Article.
“[Recently,] a Second Circuit panel resolved a sharp disagreement among district courts regarding the interpretation of the forum defendant rule in the context of a multi-district litigation ("MDL") involving dozens of product liability lawsuits against the makers of the blood-thinning medication Eliquis. In Gibbons v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., the court unanimously affirmed the district court's holding that 33 cases were properly removed to federal court and that the claims were impliedly preempted by FDA labeling rules.” See Article.
“There's a saying that one should work hard in the present to reap the rewards later in life. But should one need to work to qualify for Medicaid? In a week of legal machinations and legal setbacks on the health care front for the Trump Administration, Judge James E. Boasberg's opinion in Gresham v. Azar suggests that the answer is no, at least as the question was posed by the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the state of Arkansas. Gresham v. Azar marks the second rebuff of the Trump Administration's attempts to defend work requirements for Medicaid in federal court.” See Article.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.