Harry Niska

For the latest edition of Resolving Litigation, Rich Lee, CEO and co-founder of New Era ADR, spoke with John Burke, a veteran Chicago litigator and former Ice Miller office managing partner and current litigator at Kreis Enderle in Michigan. 🔗 https://lnkd.in/gMf7jeaw

18

1 Comment

Big small business news: the FAR Council retained the regulatory "Rule of Two" in the FAR Part 19 rewrite. The operative language, previously contained in FAR 19.202-2(b), now appears in the RFO at FAR 19.104-1: 19.104-1 Total small business set-asides. (a) A “set-aside for small business” is the limiting of an acquisition exclusively for participation by small business concerns. For contracts above the micro-purchase threshold, the contracting officer must set the contract aside for small business if there is a reasonable expectation of obtaining offers— (1) From two or more responsible small business concerns; and (2) That are competitive in terms of fair market prices, quality, and delivery. Note the rewrite just addresses set-asides "above the micro-purchase threshold" instead of separately addressing those between the micro-purchase threshold and the simplified acquisition threshold and those above the simplified acquisition threshold. GSA explains in its FAR Part 19 deviation: "For contracts, [FAR Class Deviation for FAR Part 19] keeps the rule of two (meaning COs must set aside requirements when there are two or more small businesses identified who can provide the supplies or service) above the micro-purchase threshold (MPT). The rule of two is required by statute between the MPT and the Simplified Acquisition Threshold (SAT). The FAR Council retained the rule of two above the SAT as essential to sound procurement." H/T Jim Tucker #govcon #smallbusiness

58

4 Comments

Partner Tom Witherspoon authored an article for Law360 exploring the Illinois Bankers Association v. Raoul lawsuit, a closely watched case challenging Illinois’ Interchange Fee Prohibition Act.   The article explores how the case could shape the future of banking preemption, especially around whether federal protections extend to third-party partners like card processors and networks.   Read more: https://lnkd.in/gV6ictgq #BankingLaw #StinsonLLP #FinancialRegulation

16

A Weil team led by Co-Chair of Weil’s global Litigation Department Andrew Tulumello (Drew) and Complex Commercial Litigation partner Arianna Scavetti secured the complete dismissal of a putative class action filed in the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of Chobani. The plaintiff and putative class alleges that Chobani’s flagship “Zero Sugar” product was falsely labeled because it contains allulose, a sugar substitute that fits the chemical definition of sugar but which is metabolized by the body differently than traditional sugars. This is the first case addressing the proper labeling of allulose in the food and beverage industry. Allulose is a new sweetener that will enable Chobani and other food companies to offer zero calorie versions of great tasting products. Read more about this victory and view the full Weil team: https://lnkd.in/eM6c6M7A

133

4 Comments

Williams & Connolly client Medtronic won dismissal of a putative securities class action suit where plaintiffs asserted purported violations of Sections 10(b) and 20A of the Exchange Act, alleging that an action taken by a regulator and a related disclosure rendered certain statements regarding future product approvals false and misleading. In March 2024, the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota granted Medtronic’s motion to dismiss, but allowed plaintiffs to replead. On September 30, 2025, following oral argument by partner Amanda MacDonald, the court again granted Medtronic’s motion to dismiss, dismissing plaintiffs’ claims in their entirety, this time with prejudice. The court held that even as amended, the complaint failed to allege any actionable false or misleading statements.   In addition to Ms. MacDonald, the Williams & Connolly team included associates Jamie Wolfe and Aden MacMillan.   To read more, click here: https://lnkd.in/ewsMegmV

30

Picture this board meeting. A director muses, “I wonder if that pricing model would get attention from the FTC.” 🤖 AI may dutifully summarize: “The board discussed potential regulatory exposure under FTC rules.” ⚠️ That sentence, never debated and never resolved, now lives in permanent minutes. If investors, plaintiffs, or regulators review the record later, it reads as an admission that the board knew a strategy might be unlawful and went ahead anyway. The danger is not limited to boards. Across companies, notetakers and transcription tools are creating verbatim records of meetings that were never meant to be preserved. A stray remark in a strategy session can be misread years later. Even a meeting with your attorney can lose privilege if a transcript is shared with a third party. ⚖️ Lawyers tend to avoid recordings for a reason. A transcript captures speculation and half-formed thoughts that do not belong in official records. Once created, it can be discoverable. Deleting it later only raises bigger questions. 🛑 Think twice before letting AI join your meetings. #AIisNOTaLawyer #UseAIWisely

16

9 Comments

🚨 Cautionary Tale for Trial Lawyers in the Digital Age 🚨 An Illinois appellate court recently overturned a $43.8 million trucking verdict in a serious injury case due to social media posts made by plaintiffs’ counsel during trial. The opinion offers a powerful reminder to all of us who try cases: what we post online during trial can—and will—be scrutinized for its potential to influence jurors. The court held that the defendants were denied a fair trial because of blog and Facebook posts that allegedly commented on withheld evidence and what jurors “should know but don’t.” Justice James Fitzgerald Smith wrote: “It is difficult to imagine a headline more directly crafted toward getting the attention of a person serving as a juror than ‘What Jurors Should Know But Don’t.’” He called the posts “an equally attention-grabbing accusation that jurors are improperly being ‘kept in the dark about important evidence’ specific to this case.” The court concluded the posts “grievously disappointed” its expectations for ethical conduct. The case—already tried twice—now heads to a third trial. Let this be a reminder to all of us who fight for justice: 👉 During trial, every word we say publicly—especially online—can be used to question the fairness of the process. 👉 Even well-intentioned advocacy can cross the line in the eyes of the court. 👉 Most importantly, our clients deserve to have their cases decided on the evidence, not derailed by avoidable distractions. We are storytellers. But we’re also officers of the court. Let's continue to fight hard and smart. #TrialLawyer #LegalEthics #TruckingLitigation #CivilityMatters #JusticeInTheCourts #LitigationLessons

67

42 Comments

The older I get, the less time I spend on detailed deposition outlines, and the more I spend on crafting bookmarked, highlighted e-binders with all the documents I want to show the witness. Over 95% of my depositions are via Zoom, and sharing highlighted documents on a screen is much easier than bringing a banker's box to an in-person deposition or ensuring the technology is available to share your screen with everyone involved.

49

10 Comments