Commercial Litigation Update

The Supreme Court decided two cases today, and though neither of them presents the sort of widely consequential matter that, say, the President's student loan forgiveness plan that was argued this morning does, each has interesting aspects. Both are decided on the now-vogueish doctrine of textualism, though each shows divisions among the Justices that prove again that not only can Justices who have differing jurisprudential philosophies agree with one another as to statutory meaning, but that Justices with the same jurisprudential philosophy can disagree with one another on text as well. Thus, while there are cases, like Dobbs, where one might accurately predict the outcome on the basis of philosophy or alignment with the preferences of the President who nominated various Justices, there is a host of cases where labels don't hold up at all.

Nearly a decade ago, the New Jersey Supreme Court in Atalese v. U.S. Legal Services Group, L.P., held that for an arbitration agreement to be enforceable, it had to contain an explicit waiver of the parties’ right to seek access to court. According to a recent New Jersey Appellate Division opinion, that long-standing rule has been qualified to reflect the relative sophistication of the parties involved in the dispute. In County of Passaic v. Horizon Healthcare Services, Inc. d/b/a Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield of New Jersey, the Appellate Division considered a contract between the County and the entity that managed the County’s self-funded benefits plan. Following the County’s institution of a breach of contract lawsuit, Horizon successfully moved to compel arbitration based upon a clause in the parties’ agreement that required “[i]n the event of any dispute between the parties to this Agreement arising under its terms, the parties shall submit the dispute to binding arbitration under the commercial rules of the American Arbitration Association.” The clause in question contained no explicit waiver of court access. Consequently, the County appealed the decision, arguing for that very reason, the arbitration clause was unenforceable.

Selecting a business partner, much like selecting a spouse, involves a great deal of trust in the other’s representations and conduct as the actions of one, for better or worse, can be attributed to the other. The intricacies and complications of these two relationships most recently clashed in Bartenwerfer v. Buckley, which has presumably settled the question of whether the debt resulting from the fraud of one legal partner/spouse can be imputed to the fraudster’s innocent wife in the bankruptcy context.

Finds that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services put its “thumb on the scale” 

On Monday February 8, a judge in the Eastern District of Texas again rejected the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Independent Dispute Resolution (IDR) rules on the grounds that the Rules continued to “put a thumb on the scale” for the arbitrator’s reliance on the Qualified Payment Amount (QPA) contrary to the statutory language of the No Surprises Act.

The Court has broken the logjam of pending opinions, rendering three decisions today, one of which, dealing with the issue of when overtime pay is mandated under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), might have a broader effect. So, let's start with that one: Helix Energy Solutions Group, Inc. v. Hewitt.

In response to a recent Department of Justice (DOJ) request that all DOJ components write voluntary self-disclosure policies and “clarify the benefits of promptly coming forward to self-report [as] a good business decision,” on January 17, 2023, Assistant Attorney General (AAG) Kenneth Polite, Jr. announced updates to the DOJ Criminal Division’s Corporate Enforcement and Voluntary Self-Disclosure Policy (CEP). The updated CEP, policy 9-47.120, which was previously known as the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) Corporate Enforcement Policy, expands the applicability of the CEP to now apply to all corporate criminal matters handled by the DOJ’s Criminal Division. The updated CEP, which is effective prospectively only, offers new, significant, and concrete incentives to corporations to have effective compliance programs, to voluntarily disclose allegations of criminal misconduct (including that of its officers, directors and employees), to fully cooperate with the government’s investigation of alleged misconduct, and to timely and appropriately remediate the misconduct. In announcing the updated policy, AAG Polite stated, “Our number one goal in this area – as we have repeatedly emphasized – is individual accountability. And we can hold accountable those who are criminally culpable—no matter their seniority—when companies come forward and cooperate with our investigation.”

A knock on the door. A parcel left with reception. An envelope lying on your front step. When you open it, you read the first words, “a lawsuit has been filed against you.” You or your company are being sued. What do you do? Here are the basic first steps you should take upon receiving a complaint.

While many commentators were wondering when the Supreme Court would start issuing opinions, the backlog of argued cases now being substantial, today is their day.

The Supreme Court is back in live session, and so is this blog.

Our colleagues Erik W. Weibust, Peter A. Steinmeyer, and Stuart M. Gerson co-authored an article in the Legal Backgrounder, published by the Washington Legal Foundation, titled “After 200+ Years Under State Law, FTC Proposes to Sweep Away All Noncompetes in Unauthorized Federal Power Grab.”

Following is an excerpt:

For over 200 years, the regulation of noncompetition agreements (“noncompetes”) has been entirely the province of state law. Forty-seven states currently permit noncompetes, and the most recent state to ban them was Oklahoma in 1890. Yet the ...

A recent analysis of data released by the United States Small Business Administration (“SBA”) suggests that the vast majority of Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”) loans extended to small businesses during the COVID-19 pandemic have been forgiven. While positive, this news is cold comfort to PPP borrowers for whom forgiveness was denied, or, as we addressed previously, whose lenders required them to apply for forgiveness in amounts less than the full amount of their PPP loans. PPP borrowers can apply for forgiveness of their PPP loans any time up until the loan maturity date (2025 in many cases), and borrowers continue to receive denials of forgiveness for both first- and second-draw PPP loans. As a result, the PPP appeal process remains as important today as at its inception.