CFTC Establishes Climate-Risk Unit, Echoing Other Biden Administration Agency Themes
April 12, 2021 —
Karen C. Bennett & Jane C. Luxton - Lewis BrisboisOn March 17, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC or Commission) joined other federal agencies led by Biden Administration appointees in ramping up consideration of climate-related risks in matters under the Commission’s jurisdiction. Stressing the need for a climate-resilient financial system, the CFTC’s new Climate-Risk Unit (CRU) will focus on “the role of derivatives in understanding, pricing, and addressing climate-related risk and transitioning to a low-carbon economy.”
Formation of the CRU will accelerate the CFTC’s “engagement in support of industry-led and market-driven processes in the climate – and the larger ESG – space critical to ensuring that new products and markets fairly facilitate hedging, price discovery, market transparency, and capital allocation.” As with similar programs launched by the Securities and Exchange Commission (see our previous alert from March 19), businesses affected by the CFTC’s new initiative should consider active engagement to ensure informed and appropriate approaches are included in any new regulations, policies, or frameworks governing climate-related issues.
Reprinted courtesy of
Karen C. Bennett, Lewis Brisbois and
Jane C. Luxton, Lewis Brisbois
Ms. Bennett may be contacted at Karen.Bennett@lewisbrisbois.com
Ms. Luxton may be contacted at Jane.Luxton@lewisbrisbois.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Insurance Law Alert: California Supreme Court Limits Advertising Injury Coverage for Disparagement
June 18, 2014 —
Valerie A. Moore and Chris Kendrick - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn Hartford Casualty Ins. v. Swift Distribution (No. S207172, filed 6/12/14), the California Supreme Court affirmed a 2012 appeals court holding that there is no advertising injury coverage on a theory of trade disparagement if the competitor's advertisements do not expressly refer to the plaintiff's product and do not disparage the plaintiff's product or business. In doing so, the Supreme Court expressly disapproved Travelers Property Casualty Company of America v. Charlotte Russe Holding, Inc. (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 969 ("Charlotte Russe"), which held that coverage could be triggered for "implied disparagement" by allegations that a retailer's heavy discounts on a manufacturer's premium apparel suggest to consumers that the manufacturer's products are of inferior quality.
In Hartford v. Swift the plaintiff, Dahl, held a patent for the "Multi-Cart," a collapsible cart that could be manipulated into different configurations. When Dahl's competitor Ultimate began marketing the "Ulti-Cart," Dahl sued alleging that Ultimate impermissibly manufactured, marketed, and sold the Ulti-Cart, which infringed patents and trademarks for Multi-Cart and diluted Dahl's trademark. Dahl alleged patent and trademark infringement, unfair competition, dilution of a famous mark, and misleading advertising arising from Ultimate's sale of Ulti-Carts. However, the advertisements for Ulti-Cart did not name the Multi-Cart, Dahl, or any other products beside the Ulti-Cart.
Reprinted courtesy of
Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com; Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
New York’s Comprehensive Insurance Disclosure Act Imposes Increased Disclosure Requirements On Defendants at the Beginning of Lawsuits
February 07, 2022 —
Craig Rokuson & Lisa M. Rolle - Traub Lieberman Insurance Law BlogOn December 31, 2021, New York Governor Kathy Hochul signed into law the Comprehensive Insurance Disclosure Act, which amends Section 3101(f) of the Civil Practice Law & Rules (CPLR) to require the automatic disclosure of insurance-related items within sixty days of the filing of an answer in a civil suit. For lawsuits pending as of the effective date of the Act, the disclosures required by Section 3101(f) must be provided by March 1, 2022.
Pursuant to amended Section 3101(f), defendants (including third-party defendants, cross-claim defendants, and counterclaim defendants) must provide the following information to plaintiffs within sixty days of answering the affirmative pleading, accompanied with a certification from both the defendant and his/her/their/its defense counsel that the disclosures are accurate and complete:
- Copies of all insurance policies that may be liable to satisfy a judgment in the lawsuit, including the insurance application.
- The contact information of any individuals responsible for adjusting the claim on each policy, including his/her/their phone number and email address. If a TPA is involved, his/her/their contact information must also be disclosed.
Reprinted courtesy of
Craig Rokuson, Traub Lieberman and
Lisa M. Rolle, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Rokuson may be contacted at crokuson@tlsslaw.com
Ms. Rolle may be contacted at lrolle@tlsslaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Top 10 Insurance Cases of 2020
January 11, 2021 —
Grace V. Hebbel, Andrew G. Heckler & Jeffrey J. Vita - Saxe Doernberger & Vita P.C.COVID-19 business interruption coverage litigation may have stolen the show in 2020, but those cases should not eclipse other important insurance coverage cases decided throughout this past year. As the courts nationwide struggled with the insurance coverage implications of COVID-19 related business loss, other significant coverage decisions were overshadowed. Read on to learn about how computer glitches, biometric privacy, and a falling wheelbarrow have all played a role in\ shaping some of the most interesting and influential insurance coverage decisions of 2020, as well as get a sneak peek at the key coverage decisions looming in 2021. Enjoy!
1. Nash Street, LLC v. Main Street America Assurance Company,
No. 20389, 2020 WL 5415325 (Conn. 2020)
Do exclusions k(5) and k(6) absolve an insurer of its duty to defend its insured for allegations of faulty workmanship?
Reprinted courtesy of
Grace V. Hebbel, Saxe Doernberger & Vita P.C.,
Andrew G. Heckler, Saxe Doernberger & Vita P.C. and
Jeffrey J. Vita, Saxe Doernberger & Vita P.C.
Ms. Hebbel may be contacted at GHebbel@sdvlaw.com
Mr. Heckler may be contacted at AHeckler@sdvlaw.com
Mr. Vita may be contacted at JVita@sdvlaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
California Team Secures Appellate Victory on Behalf of Celebrity Comedian Kathy Griffin in Dispute with Bel Air Neighbor
August 04, 2021 —
Jeffry Miller, Wendy Dowse, Dana Fox & Michael Moss - Lewis BrisboisSan Diego Appellate Partner Jeffry A. Miller, Indian Wells Appellate Partner Wendy S. Dowse, and Los Angeles Partners Dana Alden Fox and Michael Moss recently prevailed in an appeal from a judgment entered after the trial court granted Lewis Brisbois clients Kathy Griffin and Randy Bick, Jr.’s motion for summary adjudication of the plaintiffs’ causes of action for invasion of privacy and violation of California Penal Code section 632, which prohibits recording confidential communications.
As reported by Law360 in an article titled "Kathy Griffin Beats Calif. Neighbors' Backyard Spying Suit," and in a Bloomberg Law article titled "Comedian Kathy Griffin Beats Neighbor’s Invasion of Privacy Suit," the plaintiffs initially filed suit against Griffin and Bick, Jr. in 2018, alleging that their home security cameras recorded “every move and every communication” in the plaintiffs’ private backyard. They argued that the defendants' use of the security system invaded their privacy and violated California law. Prior to the lawsuit, Griffin and Bick, Jr. had made noise complaints about the plaintiffs to their homeowners' association and to the Los Angeles Police Department. The plaintiffs learned of the defendants' security cameras after a profane rant directed at the defendants and related to their noise complaint was recorded and reported in the media.
Reprinted courtesy of
Jeffry Miller, Lewis Brisbois,
Wendy Dowse, Lewis Brisbois,
Dana Fox, Lewis Brisbois and
Michael Moss, Lewis Brisbois
Mr. Miller may be contacted at Jeff.Miller@lewisbrisbois.com
Ms. Dowse may be contacted at Wendy.Dowse@lewisbrisbois.com
Mr. Fox may be contacted at Dana.Fox@lewisbrisbois.com
Mr. Moss may be contacted at Michael.Moss@lewisbrisbois.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
New York Court Temporarily Enjoins UCC Foreclosure Sale
September 21, 2020 —
Steven E. Ostrow, Timothy E. Davis, Steven E. Coury & Kristen E. Andreoli - White and WilliamsNew York courts have become a battleground for challenges to foreclosure sales under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) amidst the COVID-19 pandemic. Another trial court of the New York State Supreme Court (New York County) issued a preliminary injunction in Shelbourne BRF LLC v. SR 677 Bway LLC, halting a mezzanine lender’s August 19, 2020 UCC foreclosure sale. The decision confirms that the impact of the pandemic on the value of commercial real estate, and upon traditional steps taken to conduct a foreclosure auction, are both key factors that courts will continue to consider in determining whether a UCC foreclosure sale scheduled during the pandemic can be conducted in a commercially reasonable manner as required by the UCC.
THE CASE
In Shelbourne, the mezzanine borrowers owned the membership or equity interests in the companies (collectively, the “Property Owner”) that held title to a 12-story office building in Albany, New York. As security for the $3.35 million mezzanine loan, the mezzanine borrowers pledged their equity interests to the mezzanine lender. In May 2020, the mezzanine lender declared a default under the mezzanine loan as a result of the Property Owner’s default under the $28.5 million senior loan secured by a mortgage against the office building. The mezzanine lender then scheduled a public UCC foreclosure sale of the equity interests in the Property Owner for August 19, 2020. If the sale had been held, the equity interests in the Property Owner (and right to control the Property Owner and office building) would have been transferred to the successful bidder, either the mezzanine lender or a third party purchaser.
Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams attorneys
Steven E. Ostrow,
Timothy E. Davis,
Steven E. Coury and
Kristen E. Andreoli
Mr. Ostrow may be contacted at ostrows@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Davis may be contacted at davist@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Coury may be contacted at courys@whiteandwilliams.com
Ms. Andreoli may be contacted at andreolik@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Watch Your Step – Playing Golf on an Outdoor Course Necessarily Encompasses Risk of Encountering Irregularities in the Ground Surface
May 08, 2023 —
Kaitlyn A. Jensen & Lawrence S. Zucker II - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPOn April 27, 2023, the First District Court of Appeal issued an opinion in Walter Wellsfry, et al. v. Ocean Colony Partners, LLC (A165175, April 27, 2023) affirming summary judgment for a golf course owner on the grounds that the injured golfer’s lawsuit was barred by the primary assumption of risk doctrine. In doing so, the Court of Appeal found that outdoor golfers assume the risks associated with the topographical features of the course, including the risk of stepping on an inconspicuous tree root.
Recreational golfer Walter Wellsfry was walking from a tee box back to his golf cart when he allegedly stepped on a small tree root concealed by grass, causing him to fall into his golf cart in immediate pain. The ground consisted of mixed terrain, including a combination of grass, dirt, and sand. The tree root was estimated to be approximately 1.5 inches high by 1.5 inches wide. Believing he may have only sprained an ankle, Wellsfry continued the course and reported the incident to management. He later sued the golf course owner Ocean Colony Partners for negligence, claiming that the tree root was a “hidden obstruction” creating an unreasonable risk of harm to anyone who traversed the area.
Reprinted courtesy of
Kaitlyn A. Jensen, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Lawrence S. Zucker II, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Jensen may be contacted at kjensen@hbblaw.com
Mr. Zucker may be contacted at lzucker@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Bill Proposes First-Ever Federal Workforce Housing Tax Credit for Middle-Class Housing
March 04, 2024 —
Emily K. Bias & Brittany Griffith - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law BlogLegislation was recently introduced to the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives proposing the creation of the first-ever Workforce Housing Tax Credit (WHTC) for middle-income housing developments.
Similar to the existing Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC), the WHTC would provide additional federal income tax credits to housing development projects for tenants making between 60% and 100% of Area Median Income (AMI). The allocation of WHTC would be based on a competitive bid process and awarded to developments over a 15-year credit period (as opposed to a 10-year credit period for LIHTC). Developments receiving allocations of WHTC will be subject to affordability requirements during the 15-year credit period and subsequent extended use period of at least 15 years.
Reprinted courtesy of
Emily K. Bias, Pillsbury and
Brittany Griffith, Pillsbury
Ms. Bias may be contacted at emily.bias@pillsburylaw.com
Ms. Griffith may be contacted at brittany.griffith@pillsburylaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
