Sentences with phrase «mass claim litigation»

Seltzer focuses his practice on commercial and civil litigation, mass tort and mass claim litigation, professional liability defense, law enforcement and public safety, and white collar defense.

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.

The litigation - lending industry has stooped to pitching directly to victims of mass shootings and women with claims in the #MeToo movement.

About Hissey Kientz LLP: Hissey Kientz is a law firm specializing in product injury claims and medical mass torts litigation.

With several attorneys and an additional staff of more than thirty committed professionals serving the needs of clients in our Pikeville, Hazard and Lexington offices, the law firm of Gary C. Johnson, P.S.C., is ready to advise and represent people across the range of personal injury claims — car accidents, medical malpractice, gas explosions, drug litigation, mass tort and truck accidents.

This includes commercial litigation, employment, whistleblowers» claims, civil rights violations, sexual and psychological abuse, catastrophic injury, and mass torts.

· Our Appellate group is known for working with our trial lawyers to handle litigation in a broad range of areas, including qui tam actions and securities, oil and gas / energy, the First Amendment, patent and intellectual property, bankruptcy, tax, commercial transactions, business torts, mass torts, catastrophic personal injury claims, condemnation and regulatory matters.

We regularly advise leading businesses on high - profile litigation, including class actions and mass tort claims arising from product defects across a wide range of sectors, from consumer electronics, automotive, medical devices and pharmaceuticals to industrial machinery, aerospace and chemicals.

We have deep, relevant experience in product liability and mass and toxic tort litigation that we can bring to bear to handle formaldehyde - related claims.

We understand the needs of law firms with all aspects of litigation whether it is high volume mass tort litigation, personal injury, medical malpractice, disability, or workers compensation claims.

The attorneys at our firm have also represented clients in a variety of other class action cases, ranging from mass tort litigation, including asbestos claims, to pharmaceutical and medical devices.

His litigation practice focuses on the defense of toxic tort, occupational diseases, and environmental claims alleging bodily injury and property damage for both individual and mass tort claims.

Our depth of experience leaves us well suited to handle this new wave of litigation, as well as the next generation of toxic and mass tort claims.

The blog also features discussions relating to mass torts, consumer product safety and complex litigation, including the Alien Tort Statute, the False Claims Act, and class actions.

This group handles single plaintiff and mass tort litigation, complex multidistrict litigation, and class - action claims.

He also has extensive experience in derivatives litigation, consumer mass claims, infrastructure and energy projects in Spain and LatAm and general commercial litigation, including shareholder disputes and directors» liability.

GM ignition switch ruling; dangers of RV fuel systems; litigating Section 8 housing cases; maximizing recoveries in bad faith claims; tire failures and rollover accidents; spotting a product liability claim; courtroom hurdles in traumatic brain injury cases; conspicuity issues in trucking accident cases; mass torts updates related to 3M Biar Hugger warming blankets, talcum powder litigation, Taxotere claims and Zofran.

This research examines trends and offers insights into the six core areas of litigation: class actions, mass torts, asbestos, securities and mergers and acquisitions, False Claims Act, and wage and hour litigation.

Prior to joining Lewis Wagner, Meghan was an associate in the New York firm Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry's insurance coverage group, where she represented insurance company clients in insurance coverage litigation, and advised insurers on exposure and liability issues in wide array of tort and commercial contexts, including mass tort and class action litigation involving pharmaceuticals, chemical, transportation, news and entertainment, and oil and gas; environmental suits; FDA compliance claims; unfair competition and false advertising claims; intellectual property claims; construction defect; personal injury; product liability; and associated breach of contract claims.

At Conroy Simberg, we are proud of our firm's nationwide reputation for delivering highly effective defense counsel in asbestos litigation matters, as well as mass tort and products liability cases, including silica claims.

His experience includes product liability, commercial and business litigation, real estate litigation, insurance coverage disputes, personal injury defense, counseling on corporate and individual insurance claims issues, mass tort litigation, work site accidents, defense of premises liability claims, and construction and building materials defects.

We have decades of experience advising clients on risk management and compliance, and defending against class action, mass tort, multidistrict litigation, and individual actions alleging toxic tort and product liability claims.

Farrest then offered a comprehensive insight into mass tort case management during the Multidistrict Litigation claims process.

Unfortunately, the plaintiffs» trial bar has found ways to game the mass tort litigation system and have devised ways to lump claims together so as to avoid federal jurisdiction.

Encouraged by the results of the Vioxx litigation in the U.S., which proceeded by way of individual mass tort cases rather than a class action, Will Davidson LLP decided to take a similar approach for their 215 clients with claims arising from allegedly defective pelvic mesh devices.

We have extensive experience with asbestos matters, from handling individual claims through managing mass tort litigation involving tens of thousands of cases.

Our mass tort litigation and nuclear energy litigation teams represent companies facing radiation contamination, radiation exposure, personal injury, and property damage claims.

Corporate Litigation Counsel: Ms. Sedney has acted as outside corporate litigation counsel in a variety of contexts including wrongful death litigation, breach of contract claims, alleged asbestos exposure, general tort litigation, product liability and mass tort lLitigation Counsel: Ms. Sedney has acted as outside corporate litigation counsel in a variety of contexts including wrongful death litigation, breach of contract claims, alleged asbestos exposure, general tort litigation, product liability and mass tort llitigation counsel in a variety of contexts including wrongful death litigation, breach of contract claims, alleged asbestos exposure, general tort litigation, product liability and mass tort llitigation, breach of contract claims, alleged asbestos exposure, general tort litigation, product liability and mass tort llitigation, product liability and mass tort litigationlitigation.

Kevin is a trial attorney concentrating his practice in product liability litigation and mass tort, defending corporations and individuals in personal injury claims involving automobiles and other consumer products.

Sheryl Bjork concentrates her practice on the defense of complex mass tort product liability claims, representing some of the world's largest medical device and pharmaceutical manufacturers in individual, MDL, and class action litigation.

Her current practice focuses primarily on mass tort pharmaceutical and medical device litigation, hurricane - related takings and insurance denials, war veterans» claims under the Anti-Terrorism Act, and lawsuits related to the BP Oil Spill.

(1) extending negligent misrepresentation beyond «business transactions» to product liability, unprecedented in Texas; (2) ignoring multiple US Supreme Court decisions that express and implied preemption operate independently (as discussed here) to dismiss implied preemption with nothing more than a cite to the Medtronic v. Lohr express preemption decision; (3) inventing some sort of state - law tort to second - guess the defendant following one FDA marketing approach (§ 510k clearance) over another (pre-market approval), unprecedented anywhere; (4) holding that the learned intermediary rule does not apply whenever a defendant «compensates» or «incentivizes» physicians to use its products, absent any Texas state or appellate authority; (5) imposing strict liability on an entity not in the product's chain of sale, contrary to Texas statute (§ 82.001 (2)-RRB-; (6) creating a claim for «tortious interference» with the physician - patient relationship, again utterly unprecedented; (7) creating «vicarious» breach of fiduciary duty for engaging doctors to serve as expert witnesses in mass tort litigation also involving their patients, ditto; and (8) construing a consulting agreement with a physician as «commercial bribery» to avoid the Texas cap on punitive damages, jaw - droppingly unprecedented.