Sentences with phrase «companies for products liability»

We are experienced in pursuing medical device companies for products liability compensation or our clients.

Not exact matches

Important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those reflected in such forward - looking statements and that should be considered in evaluating our outlook include, but are not limited to, the following: 1) our ability to continue to grow our business and execute our growth strategy, including the timing, execution, and profitability of new and maturing programs; 2) our ability to perform our obligations under our new and maturing commercial, business aircraft, and military development programs, and the related recurring production; 3) our ability to accurately estimate and manage performance, cost, and revenue under our contracts, including our ability to achieve certain cost reductions with respect to the B787 program; 4) margin pressures and the potential for additional forward losses on new and maturing programs; 5) our ability to accommodate, and the cost of accommodating, announced increases in the build rates of certain aircraft; 6) the effect on aircraft demand and build rates of changing customer preferences for business aircraft, including the effect of global economic conditions on the business aircraft market and expanding conflicts or political unrest in the Middle East or Asia; 7) customer cancellations or deferrals as a result of global economic uncertainty or otherwise; 8) the effect of economic conditions in the industries and markets in which we operate in the U.S. and globally and any changes therein, including fluctuations in foreign currency exchange rates; 9) the success and timely execution of key milestones such as the receipt of necessary regulatory approvals, including our ability to obtain in a timely fashion any required regulatory or other third party approvals for the consummation of our announced acquisition of Asco, and customer adherence to their announced schedules; 10) our ability to successfully negotiate, or re-negotiate, future pricing under our supply agreements with Boeing and our other customers; 11) our ability to enter into profitable supply arrangements with additional customers; 12) the ability of all parties to satisfy their performance requirements under existing supply contracts with our two major customers, Boeing and Airbus, and other customers, and the risk of nonpayment by such customers; 13) any adverse impact on Boeing's and Airbus» production of aircraft resulting from cancellations, deferrals, or reduced orders by their customers or from labor disputes, domestic or international hostilities, or acts of terrorism; 14) any adverse impact on the demand for air travel or our operations from the outbreak of diseases or epidemic or pandemic outbreaks; 15) our ability to avoid or recover from cyber-based or other security attacks, information technology failures, or other disruptions; 16) returns on pension plan assets and the impact of future discount rate changes on pension obligations; 17) our ability to borrow additional funds or refinance debt, including our ability to obtain the debt to finance the purchase price for our announced acquisition of Asco on favorable terms or at all; 18) competition from commercial aerospace original equipment manufacturers and other aerostructures suppliers; 19) the effect of governmental laws, such as U.S. export control laws and U.S. and foreign anti-bribery laws such as the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and the United Kingdom Bribery Act, and environmental laws and agency regulations, both in the U.S. and abroad; 20) the effect of changes in tax law, such as the effect of The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (the «TCJA») that was enacted on December 22, 2017, and changes to the interpretations of or guidance related thereto, and the Company's ability to accurately calculate and estimate the effect of such changes; 21) any reduction in our credit ratings; 22) our dependence on our suppliers, as well as the cost and availability of raw materials and purchased components; 23) our ability to recruit and retain a critical mass of highly - skilled employees and our relationships with the unions representing many of our employees; 24) spending by the U.S. and other governments on defense; 25) the possibility that our cash flows and our credit facility may not be adequate for our additional capital needs or for payment of interest on, and principal of, our indebtedness; 26) our exposure under our revolving credit facility to higher interest payments should interest rates increase substantially; 27) the effectiveness of any interest rate hedging programs; 28) the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting; 29) the outcome or impact of ongoing or future litigation, claims, and regulatory actions; 30) exposure to potential product liability and warranty claims; 31) our ability to effectively assess, manage and integrate acquisitions that we pursue, including our ability to successfully integrate the Asco business and generate synergies and other cost savings; 32) our ability to consummate our announced acquisition of Asco in a timely matter while avoiding any unexpected costs, charges, expenses, adverse changes to business relationships and other business disruptions for ourselves and Asco as a result of the acquisition; 33) our ability to continue selling certain receivables through our supplier financing program; 34) the risks of doing business internationally, including fluctuations in foreign current exchange rates, impositions of tariffs or embargoes, compliance with foreign laws, and domestic and foreign government policies; and 35) our ability to complete the proposed accelerated stock repurchase plan, among other things.

Such risks, uncertainties and other factors include, without limitation: (1) the effect of economic conditions in the industries and markets in which United Technologies and Rockwell Collins operate in the U.S. and globally and any changes therein, including financial market conditions, fluctuations in commodity prices, interest rates and foreign currency exchange rates, levels of end market demand in construction and in both the commercial and defense segments of the aerospace industry, levels of air travel, financial condition of commercial airlines, the impact of weather conditions and natural disasters and the financial condition of our customers and suppliers; (2) challenges in the development, production, delivery, support, performance and realization of the anticipated benefits of advanced technologies and new products and services; (3) the scope, nature, impact or timing of acquisition and divestiture or restructuring activity, including the pending acquisition of Rockwell Collins, including among other things integration of acquired businesses into United Technologies» existing businesses and realization of synergies and opportunities for growth and innovation; (4) future timing and levels of indebtedness, including indebtedness expected to be incurred by United Technologies in connection with the pending Rockwell Collins acquisition, and capital spending and research and development spending, including in connection with the pending Rockwell Collins acquisition; (5) future availability of credit and factors that may affect such availability, including credit market conditions and our capital structure; (6) the timing and scope of future repurchases of United Technologies» common stock, which may be suspended at any time due to various factors, including market conditions and the level of other investing activities and uses of cash, including in connection with the proposed acquisition of Rockwell; (7) delays and disruption in delivery of materials and services from suppliers; (8) company and customer - directed cost reduction efforts and restructuring costs and savings and other consequences thereof; (9) new business and investment opportunities; (10) our ability to realize the intended benefits of organizational changes; (11) the anticipated benefits of diversification and balance of operations across product lines, regions and industries; (12) the outcome of legal proceedings, investigations and other contingencies; (13) pension plan assumptions and future contributions; (14) the impact of the negotiation of collective bargaining agreements and labor disputes; (15) the effect of changes in political conditions in the U.S. and other countries in which United Technologies and Rockwell Collins operate, including the effect of changes in U.S. trade policies or the U.K.'s pending withdrawal from the EU, on general market conditions, global trade policies and currency exchange rates in the near term and beyond; (16) the effect of changes in tax (including U.S. tax reform enacted on December 22, 2017, which is commonly referred to as the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017), environmental, regulatory (including among other things import / export) and other laws and regulations in the U.S. and other countries in which United Technologies and Rockwell Collins operate; (17) the ability of United Technologies and Rockwell Collins to receive the required regulatory approvals (and the risk that such approvals may result in the imposition of conditions that could adversely affect the combined company or the expected benefits of the merger) and to satisfy the other conditions to the closing of the pending acquisition on a timely basis or at all; (18) the occurrence of events that may give rise to a right of one or both of United Technologies or Rockwell Collins to terminate the merger agreement, including in circumstances that might require Rockwell Collins to pay a termination fee of $ 695 million to United Technologies or $ 50 million of expense reimbursement; (19) negative effects of the announcement or the completion of the merger on the market price of United Technologies» and / or Rockwell Collins» common stock and / or on their respective financial performance; (20) risks related to Rockwell Collins and United Technologies being restricted in their operation of their businesses while the merger agreement is in effect; (21) risks relating to the value of the United Technologies» shares to be issued in connection with the pending Rockwell acquisition, significant merger costs and / or unknown liabilities; (22) risks associated with third party contracts containing consent and / or other provisions that may be triggered by the Rockwell merger agreement; (23) risks associated with merger - related litigation or appraisal proceedings; and (24) the ability of United Technologies and Rockwell Collins, or the combined company, to retain and hire key personnel.

Because the insurance industry doesn't recognize software as a product, the product liability that is included with many general liability or business owner's policies won't provide any protection for the types of products and services many of today's technology companies provide.

Forethought Life Insurance Company's products are not sponsored, endorsed, sold or promoted by SPDJI, Dow Jones, S&P, their respective affiliates and none of such parties make any representation regarding the advisability of investing in such product (s) nor do they have any liability for any errors, omissions, or interruptions of the S&P 500 ® Index.

A policyholder could find itself in the position of recalling on its own initiative or being asked by FDA to recall based on this «reasonable probability» standard, but not being able to satisfy the definition of «accidental contamination» under its specialty policy because it can not prove its product was W With the frequency of costly product recalls on the rise, many companies have considered purchasing specialty recall coverage to secure coverage for certain recall - related losses that are often excluded from general liability and property policies.

Any contamination of food with impurities of any kind may have most serious consequences for a company, because under the product liability law every food producer is liable for contaminations of his products in case a consumer should be harmed by such contaminations.

, and now allows companies which make add - on products for football helmets to make their own certification of compliance with the NOCSAE standards on a helmet model, as long as the certification is done according to NOCSAE standards, and as long as the manufacturer assumes responsibility (in other words, potential legal liability) for the helmet / add - on combination.

The long answer is that, it is true that the National Operating Committee on Standards for Athletic Equipment (NOCSAE) initially decided in July 2013 that modification of helmets with third - party after - market add - ons, such as impact sensors installed inside a helmet or to its exterior, would be viewed as voiding the helmet manufacturer's certification, and that the certification could only be regained if the helmet was retested by the manufacturer with the add - on, NOCSAE later issued a press release clarifying that position: Instead of automatically voiding the certification, NOCSAE decided it would leave it up to helmet manufacturers to decide whether a particular third - party add - on affixed to the helmet, such as a impact sensor, voided its certification of compliance with NOCSAE's standard, and now allows companies which make add - on products for football helmets to make their own certification of compliance with the NOCSAE standards on a helmet model, as long as the certification is done according to NOCSAE standards, and as long as the manufacturer assumes responsibility (in other words, potential legal liability) for the helmet / add - on combination.

Unlike other medical treatments for which companies are driven to keep their products safe because of liability threats, their brief says «the Vaccine Program itself provides no incentive to vaccine manufacturers to make their vaccines safer.»

Under the terms of the agreement, which was unanimously approved by the boards of directors of both companies, Ikanos will purchase Conexant's Broadband Access product line for $ 54 million in cash and the assumption of certain employee and facility related liabilities.

«If Philip Morris chooses to market an inherently dangerous product, it is at the very least perverse to allow the company to escape liability by showing only that its product was used for its ordinary purpose.»

Subject to the terms of this Agreement, You are granted a limited, nontransferable, royalty - free license to redistribute and sublicense the use of the Programs solely to Authorized End - Users: in object code form only; (ii) as embedded within Your Integrated Product for internal company use, hosted applications, websites, commercial solutions deployed at Your Authorized End Users sites, or shrink - or click - wrapped software solutions; and (iii) pursuant to an end user license agreement or terms of use that: imposes the limitations set forth in this paragraph on Your Authorized End - Users; prohibits distribution of the Programs by Your Authorized End - Users; limits the liability of Your licensors or suppliers to the maximum extent permitted by applicable law; and prohibits any attempt to disassemble the code, or attempt in any manner to reconstruct, discover, reuse or modify any source code or underlying algorithms of the Programs, except to the limited extent as is permitted by law notwithstanding contractual prohibition.

We represent individuals and professionals, municipalities and their agencies, business entities, trucking companies, insurers and their insureds from claims and lawsuits for catastrophic losses and personal injuries, civil rights, construction losses and contracts, employment related practices, property damage and wrongful death arising from the transportation function and commercial motor vehicle activity; the ownership, use and control of land (including environmentally related or toxic exposure claims); the design, manufacture, sale or use of industrial and consumer products; and liability claims against licensed professionals, including lawyers, engineers, accountants and architects, in the States of Pennsylvania and New Jersey.

Nonetheless, C.B. Fleet Company may be held liable for negligence under pharmaceutical statutes or be subject to strict product liability laws, in which case negligence need not be proven.

Partner Andrew Cox spoke about product liability risks to companies along the supply chain for medical - device makers, in an address to the Plastics in Medical Devices 2012 conference in Westlake, Ohio in June of 2012, hosted by Plastics News.

Prior to joining the firm, Cari represented national companies in litigation for claims involving healthcare, personal injury, contract disputes, and product liability matters.

Professional Associations Monroe County Bar Association, Member New York State Bar Association, Chairman: Torts, Insurance, and Compensation Law Section (2003 - 2004) NYSBA Automobile Liability Committee Chairman (1991 - 1995) NYSBA House of Delegates, Delegate (1999 - 2004) New York State Trial Lawyers Association Risk and Insurance Management Society (2007 - present) Council on Litigation Management (2008 - present); Chairman, Products Liability Conference (2010 - 2013) New York Editorial Board, Lawyers Cooperative Publishing Company (1993 - 1995) Defense Research Institute (2000 - present) The National Fire Protection Association, Member The American Society for Metals, Member

In other work, Henning Moelle has been acting as international lead counsel for the pharmaceutical company Grünenthal in product liability claims for alleged birth defects caused by thalidomide.

Our experienced Houston and Dallas product liability attorneys handle cases for injured plaintiffs and for companies hoping to limit exposure and risk.

If your injury was caused by a defect in the design or manufacturing process, then the person or company responsible for the defect may be liable to compensate you for your injuries through a product liability claim.

In a complex products liability action involving alleged PCB contamination of a state office building, the Appellate Practice Group joined forces with litigation counsel to convert a $ 60 million judgment to a defense verdict for a large, multinational company.

Alistair Mackenzie, product liability expert and barrister at leading civil and commercial chambers 2 Temple Gardens, had this to say: «Given the number of recent food contamination scares, for the authorities to finally hold a company properly to account is long overdue.

Kevin Norchi began the practice of law with civil trial experience in Cleveland for two years and then in Cincinnati for six years defending physicians and hospitals in medical negligence lawsuits and pharmaceutical companies in drug product liability matters.

Following the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Wyeth v. Levine that FDA approval does not preempt state tort liability for drug makers, state court decisions like this one will be an important battle ground in pharmaceutical companies» product liability litigation.

In addition to the products liability issue pertaining to the airbag and the automaker, the rental car company failed to acknowledge a recall for the Honda that was issued in July of 2009.

Other CLE topics include providing liability of construction equipment rental companies and dealers for workplace accidents; pitfalls and ethics of co-counseling product liability cases; and bankruptcy issues in products liability cases.

Children's product liability attorney Jeff Killino believes in holding negligent companies liable for the harm they cause consumers.

Named «Best Lawyers» 2018 «Oklahoma City Lawyers of the Year» were Timothy J. Bomhoff for product liability litigation defense, W. Chris Coleman for both securities regulation and venture capital law, Robert W. Dace for mass tort litigation / class actions defense, Elizabeth L. Dalton for franchise law, Spencer W. Haines for closely held companies and family businesses law, Henry D. Hoss for construction litigation, and Susan B. Shields for tax litigation and controversy.

Upon joining the Firm of which he is now a principal, Bruce has had the primary responsibility for managing and litigating the firm's most protracted and complex cases, including product liability cases against such major manufacturers as General Motors Corporation, Ford Motor Company, Caterpillar, Inc., GlaxoSmithKline, Bausch & Lomb, Kawasaki Heavy Industries, Ltd. and Dow Corning Corporation.

If a pharmaceutical company attempts to hide a drug's dangerous side effects, this can be grounds for a product liability lawsuit.

These factors have persuaded numerous companies to retain us as lead or coordinating counsel for their most complex product liability and mass tort litigations.

Hughes Hubbard's Product Liability and Mass Tort group is widely recognized by leading legal publications, jurists, clients and the products bar at large as a «go to» defense team for a company's most complex and challenging products litigation.

Member of trial team involving multiple pharmaceutical product liability claims for multinational, Fortune 50 pharmaceutical company in various venues throughout Texas and the United States; Trial co-counsel involving alleged marketing and design defect allegations in multiple trials lasting several weeks to several months.

Expert development and MDL coordinating counsel for global pharmaceutical company in product liability litigation involving medication to treat gastrointestinal conditions

Led by co-founders and senior partners Mary Quinn Cooper and William S. Leach, ECSL specializes in commercial litigation, products liability, class actions and complex civil litigation on a regional and national level for clients ranging from small privately owned companies and government entities to Fortune 100 companies.

He has also served as National Coordinating Liability Counsel for a major international insurance company with reference to the defense of products liability claims involving thousands of individual claimants and several class actions consolidated in Federal Multi District LiLiability Counsel for a major international insurance company with reference to the defense of products liability claims involving thousands of individual claimants and several class actions consolidated in Federal Multi District Liliability claims involving thousands of individual claimants and several class actions consolidated in Federal Multi District Litigation.

«Our survey results show that the ever - changing regulatory environment is also top - of - mind for consumer products companies,» stated Julie Park, a partner in the Product Liability and Counseling Practice.

So if you are making a claim against a pharmaceutical company, for example, it helps to know that the Missouri product liability law firm is able to take on defective drug cases.

Jake has successfully defended corporations in high exposure product liability cases and has obtained favorable outcomes for individual and corporate entities — from successful small companies to Fortune 100 corporations — in complex business litigation disputes.

Plaintiff May Sue Manufacturer of Name - Brand Prescription Drug for Injury Allegedly Caused by Different Company's Generic Drug, Indiana Injury Lawyer Blog, February 28, 2013 Federal Statute Preempts State Products Liability Lawsuit Over Asbestos Exposure, According to Supreme Court: Kurns v. Railroad Friction Products Corp., Indiana Injury Lawyer Blog, October 18, 2012

Like any company, pharmaceutical corporations as well as doctors who prescribed the medication, have the liability of ensuring that their products are safe for consumption and that these medical treatments do not pose an unhealthy risk to their patients.

When the strap breaks because it was overloaded and a consumer is then injured or property damaged, the company may find itself involved in a product liability suit and responsible for those injuries and damages simply for making false or uninformed claims.

He served for many years as lead national coordinating and trial counsel defending a drug company in thousands of product liability cases as well as a series of economic - loss class actions.

Beyond looking for more cost - effective ways to defend against medical products liability claims and comply with FDA pre-market and post-marketing mandates, medical device companies are seeking proactive ways to protect themselves from this high - stakes litigation.

Fortunately, individuals or companies responsible for these injuries are held accountable due to the product liability laws in the United States.

Written by John A. Day, Civil Trial Specialist, 2012 Best Lawyers Bet - the - Company Litigation Lawyer of the Year for Nashville and 2012 Best Lawyers in America listed in Personal Injury, Medical Malpractice, Products Liability, Commercial and Bet - the - Company Litigation, Day on Torts identifies more than 300 Tennessee tort law subjects and provides summary of the leading case on each subject to give you a quick, readable synopsis of current state of the law.

Napa Home & Garden, which sold fire pots and candle fuel, said mounting liabilities from a product recall and injuries allegedly caused by one of its products, forced the company to file for bankruptcy on July 5 in Atlanta.

The Magnuson - Moss Act (1973) sets minimum standards for product warranties, makes a company that financed the sale responsible for product defects, and creates liability for «implied» warranties (when the circumstances show that a warranty of the product was intended) as well as express (stated) warranties.

A product liability claim may be filed against the manufacturer, distributor or retailer in order to hold the company responsible for creating or distributing a subpar product with a manufacturing defect or design defect.