On December 4, 2023, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in a case that may have major implications for bankruptcy law in the Fifth Circuit. While the Fifth Circuit has held that bankruptcy courts may not incorporate third-party releases, this case, Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et. al., challenges the legality of Purdue’s Chapter 11 bankruptcy reorganization plan on the grounds that the plan exceeds the Bankruptcy Code’s authorization by releasing claims held by non-debtors against other non-debtor third parties without the claimants’ consent. Partner Marc Tabolsky and associate Adam Greiner discuss the case’s background as well as its potential to reverse current Fifth Circuit precedent that denies the use of releases between non-debtors in Chapter 11 reorganization plans.

On June 2, 2023, the Texas Supreme Court agreed to hear Ammonite Oil & Gas Corp. v. Railroad Commission of Texas and EOG Resources, which concerns a state regulator’s rejection of 16 applications submitted by Ammonite to force pool its mineral estate with adjacent wells operated by EOG under the Texas Mineral Interest Pooling Act (MIPA). Now, the court is poised to weigh in on several points regarding the scope and interpretation of the MIPA. Partner Persis Dean and associate Kelly Swanson provide key details of the case as well as its potential implications.

On Friday, May 12, the Texas Senate passed a bill that would create a specialized business court to oversee complex civil litigation. SHJ senior counsel Katherine Ring provides an overview of key changes proposed by the bill, which aims to streamline the resolution of high-stakes business disputes statewide.

On July 9, 2021, President Joe Biden signed an executive order calling for stronger enforcement of antitrust laws to promote competition and curtail the consolidation of American industries. Since then, the DOJ has pursued a vigorous campaign of antitrust enforcement, including blocking purportedly anti-competitive mergers and addressing non-merger anti-competitive conduct. SHJ senior counsel Brandon Winchester and associate Kelly Swanson discuss the DOJ’s recent efforts and offer guidance for companies considering a merger in the current antitrust landscape.

Like any other type of litigation, trade secret cases rise or fall on the strength of the evidence that can be put before the factfinder. Yet before a lawyer can focus on what evidence they have to make or defend their case, they must first collect that evidence. With information technology being incorporated into every business at a lightning-fast pace, evidence has accordingly become increasingly complicated to source. The final part of this series outlines best practices for the identification, collection, and preservation of evidence for use in a trade secrets case.

As discussed in part one of this series, trade secret litigation presents a minefield of evidentiary challenges. But while the act of misappropriation is often simple enough to demonstrate, calculating the precise value of damages can be extremely difficult. This second article outlines the evidence needed to articulate a legally cognizable damages model.

Trade secret litigation is set to increase in the coming decades, accelerated by the enactment of the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act (“DTSA”) in 2016. Most cases do not contain direct evidence of stolen secrets, however. Instead, stray pieces of indirect evidence must come together to tell a larger story of theft. Consequently, lawyers handling this type of litigation must take the time to understand its intricacies and machinations, particularly the specific statutory requirements imposed by the uniform trade secrets acts (such as the Texas Uniform Trade Secrets Act, or “TUTSA”) and the evidence that will and will not satisfy these requirements.

A new three-part series by SHJ partner Varant Yegparian examines different concerns regarding evidence in trade secret cases, aiming to shed light on the correlative legal requirements to which this evidence is applied. This first article articulates the legal framework envisioned by TUTSA, addressing the requirements to prove the existence of a trade secret and to establish liability.

On July 1, 2020, the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) took effect, replacing the 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). The USMCA provides a three-year sunset period for investors to submit arbitration claims related to foreign investments established or acquired under NAFTA. Now that the practical deadline of April 1, 2023 has passed, investors can no longer access NAFTA’s dispute resolution mechanism and must file investment claims under the USMCA regime. A new article by SHJ managing partner Andy Hicks and associate Fatima Aslam outlines key changes that investors should look out for.