Today, our colleague Dick Oliver posted his Alert titled Changes Imminent for GAO Bid Protests. Takeaways include:
In recent years many industries, including, by way of example only, the solar industry, have rapidly adopted text messaging to, among other things, keep in touch with their customers, to alert customers to the availability of new goods and services, and to entice customers to upgrade their systems with a promotional offer or rebate-related information. Pre-recorded calls and text messages are governed by the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and the Federal Communication Commission’s (FCC) implementing rules. In recent years, thousands of nationwide consumer class actions have been filed alleging violations of the TCPA – including bare technical violations – and seeking up to $1,500 for each alleged unlawful pre-recorded call and/or text message.
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act’s (CERCLA, also known also as Superfund) stringent hazardous substance release reporting requirements are set forth as Section 103 of Superfund. A spill or release of a reportable quantity of a regulated hazardous substance must be reported immediately by the person in charge of the facility or vessel to the National Response Center. The hundreds of listed hazardous substances and their reportable quantities are set forth at 42 C.F.R. § 302.4 of the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) rules. Their requirements apply to almost all facilities, with the exception of federally permitted releases, including farms.
This newest exception to the CERLA notification requirements is included in the Fair Agricultural Reporting Method Act, or FARM Act, that was included in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2018.
On March 29, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit decided an important oil spill cost recovery case: In re Petition of Frescati Shipping Co., Ltd. v. Citgo Asphalt Refining Co., et al. It is a case concerning the apportionment of oil spill-related cleanup costs and related affirmative defenses, including subrogation, equitable recoupment, and liability limitations under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA).
Legal arguments that the laws a state enacts which take into consideration the interests of its own citizens unfairly impede the free flow of interstate commerce are difficult to win, as demonstrated by two recent U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit rulings. On March 29, the Second Circuit issued two Commerce Clause/Dormant Commerce Clause decisions:
Check out our colleague Tim Wright’s recent post on Pillsbury’s Sourcing Blog titled Oh No, Mr. Robot Just Hacked Our Smart Building…
Public discourse regarding climate change is becoming focused less on whether it is occurring, and more on what society can and should do to address or slow its progression. Geoengineering, which involves deliberately modifying the earth’s climate, is gaining traction in the scientific community and may prove to be a useful tool in the future. However, as with many emerging technologies, the legal system is not designed to regulate geoengineering research and testing activities, much less widescale deployment.
In an article recently published in Pratt’s Energy Law Report, Pillsbury partner Rob James offers his suggestions on how domestic law can be navigated effectively to facilitate the research of geoengineering technologies.
Today, our colleagues John Jensen, Dick Oliver and David Dixon published their Alert titled Defenders of the Debriefing, New DoD rules enhance contractors’ post-award debriefing rights. Takeaways include:
California rang in 2018 as the largest legal marketplace in the country for recreational marijuana when it implemented the Medicinal and Adult-Use Cannabis
Regulatory Safety Act (“MAUCRSA”). As we discussed in Part 1 and Part 2 of this blog series, while California’s real estate industry is budding with recreational marijuana, negative side effects are inevitable. In this Part 3 of our five part blog series on the legalization of marijuana and its correlation to the real estate industry, we discuss what has changed since January 1st, what still needs to be done, and how the real estate industry has been impacted.
On March 20, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit decided the case of Marquette County Road Commission v. U.S. EPA, et al. The opinion will not be published in the Federal Reporter. Both the trial court and the Sixth Circuit rejected the Marquette County Road Commission’s argument that the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) actions and inactions amounted to a “veto,” and were thus a “final action” for purposes of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
