Sorry for interrupting, but there is something we need to tell you...

We have updated our Cookie Policy to reflect changes in the law on cookies used on websites in Europe. This website uses cookies to maximize your experience and help us to understand how we can improve it. To find out more click here.

Cookies are text files containing small amounts of data which are downloaded to your computer, or other device, when you visit a website. Cookies allow us to recognize your computer and improve your experience on our website. Some cookies are also necessary for the technical operation of our website. Please read our Cookie Policy which provides important information about the cookies we use, how we use them and how they can be deleted. Please remember that deleting cookies may affect your experience of our website.

Show less.

Accept and hide this message
Pillsbury Pillsbury Pillsbury
Email Page Print Friendly Version Text Size

Publications & Presentations

We encourage you to peruse this Publications & Presentations section for timely analysis and industry insights, including bylined articles, client alerts, white papers, practice and industry newsletters, audio and video broadcasts, featuring interviews with our lawyers, as well as case studies highlighting compelling legal challenges our clients have faced.

Also, please visit our Events page to learn more about upcoming seminars, CLE programs, and other presentations which may be of interest.

Recent Publications

View all Publications

April 2015
Reversing Course, EPA Tightens Its RCRA Hazardous Waste Recycling Rules
Source: EM Magazine
Author: Anthony B. Cavender

A long-term project by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to reform, reduce, and relax the regulatory obstacles to the reclamation and recovery of valuable byproducts generated by industrial operations appears to have come to an end. In January 2015, EPA promulgated a final rule that again revised the agency’s regulatory definition of “solid waste,” which is the linchpin of EPA’s authority under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) to regulate the management of hazardous waste (see January 13, 2015, Federal Register).

Supreme Court to Securities Issuers: Beware What You Omit When Stating Your Opinions
Authors: Bruce A. Ericson, David M. Furbush, Sarah A. Good

Deciding this Term’s big securities case, a unanimous Supreme Court held on March 24 that a statement of opinion does not become actionable under the “untrue statement of material fact” clause of section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 merely because subsequent events prove it wrong, so long as the speaker honestly held the opinion. But the Court split 7-1-1 as to whether such an honest-but-wrong-in-hindsight opinion might nevertheless be actionable under the “material omissions” clause of section 11, and the Court remanded for further proceedings. Taken together, the three opinions in the case flag the issue of the extent to which opinions in a registration statement ought to be qualified and their bases explained. Omnicare, Inc. v. Laborers Dist. Council Constr. Ind. Pension Fund, No. 13-435, 2015 WL 1291916 (Mar. 24, 2015).

Court of Appeals to Directors of Nonprofits: “Nonprofit” Does Not Mean “No Risk for You”
Authors: Bruce A. Ericson, Jerald A. Jacobs, Marley Degner

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently upheld a $2.25 million jury verdict against the directors of a nonprofit nursing home, holding them personally liable for breach of their duty of care. Their sin? Failing to remove the nursing home’s administrator and CFO “once the results of their mismanagement became apparent.” While the court overturned a punitive damages verdict against five directors (the jury had found nine other directors liable for compensatory damages but not punitive damages), it upheld punitive damage awards of $1 million against the CFO and $750,000 against the Administrator. The decision, while unusual, illustrates that serving on a nonprofit board is not risk-free—even if, as in this case, the directors do not breach their duty of loyalty or engage in any self-dealing. In re Lemington Home for the Aged, 777 F.3d 620 (3d Cir. 2015).

Practice / Industry
Focus Teams
From Date
To Date
Pillsbury Pillsbury Pillsbury