Latest Post

N.C. Court Warns Plaintiffs that Voluntary Dismissal of an Invalid Complaint Won’t Toll the Statute of Limitations

At first glance there seems to be a saving grace in the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure for plaintiffs who are running up against the deadline for filing a lawsuit, i.e., Rule 41(a)(1).  Rule 41(a)(1) provides that if a complaint was filed timely and subsequently dismissed by the plaintiff voluntarily, the case may be … Continue reading »

Significant Developments & Updates

  • HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE HEARING ON DOJ OVERSIGHT: The House Judiciary Committee recently held a hearing regarding oversight of the U.S. Department of Justice during which Attorney General Eric Holder testified.  A webcast of the hearing and testimony can be found here. Posted by Tony Lathrop, Apr. 28 2014
  • HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE COPYRIGHT HEARING:  On April 2, 2014, the House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet held a hearing “Preservation and Reuse of Copyrighted Works.”  Witness testimony and a webcast of the hearing can be viewed here.  Posted by Tony Lathrop, Apr. 11, 2014.
  • HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE RECONSIDERS CHAPTER 11 BANKRUPTCY: Last week, the House Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, Commercial and Antitrust Law held its hearing to address Bankruptcy reform - Exploring Chapter 11 Reform: Corporate and Financial Institution Insolvencies; Treatment of Derivatives.  The witness list and testimony are available here.  Posted by Tony Lathrop, Apr. 4, 2014.
  • A LIBERAL SHIFT IN THE FOURTH CIRCUIT? - PART 2: In part two of this Bloomberg BNA series, MVA Litigation Associate Jason Idilbi continues analyzing whether the judges appointed during the 2010-2011 term to the historically conservative Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals have caused the court to lean towards the left.  Idilbi examines the outcomes of the Fourth Circuit’s recent en banc rehearings and whether they demonstrate that there has been an ideological shift on the court.  Idilbi Article Part 2.  If you missed Part 1, see our previous post. Posted Feb. 13, 2014
  • FEBRUARY 15TH DEADLINE TO COMMENT ON PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE:  In August 2013, the Advisory Committee on Civil Rules published proposed amendments to the Fed. R. Civ. P. which address the challenges of managing the scope of discovery in the digital age and the attendant consequences for a party’s failure to meet its discovery obligations. The proposed amendments impose limitations on discovery and spoliation sanctions. Read my previous post for details.  Comments are due February 15, 2014. You may submit comments online.  Posted by Tony Lathrop, Feb. 11, 2014
  • A LIBERAL SHIFT IN THE FOURTH CIRCUIT: In a two-part Bloomberg BNA series, MVA Litigation Associate Jason Idilbi analyzes whether a shift in the political makeup of the Fourth Circuit in the 2010-2011 term has resulted in the court, which has been one of the most conservative, becoming more liberal. Read Idilbi Article Part 1. Posted Feb. 7, 2014
  • In Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U. S. ____ (Jan. 14, 2014), the U.S. Supreme Court reiterated that general or “all-purpose” jurisdiction can be exercised over foreign corporations only “when their affilia­tions with the State are so ‘continuous and systematic’ as to render them essentially at home in the forum State.” No general jurisdiction lies over a foreign defendant in a suit by foreign plaintiffs for actions outside of the U.S., based solely on its indirect subsidiary’s contacts with a state in which it is neither incorporated nor holds its principal place of business. Posted by Tony Lathrop, Jan 30, 2014.
  • In a continuation of the House Judiciary Committee’s extensive review of U.S. Copyright law, the Subcommittee on Courts, IP, and the Internet held “The Scope of Fair Use” hearing on January 28, 2014. The hearing examined issues related to the fair use doctrine, including take-down provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”), and recommendations for preserving or modifying the doctrine’s protections. Hearing witness list and testimony.  Posted by Tony Lathrop, Jan. 29, 2014.
  • In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court ruled on Jan. 14, 2014 that the state parens patriae action in Mississippi ex rel. Hood v. Au Optronics Corp. was not removable under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 as a “mass action,” because the state is the only named plaintiff:  571 U. S. ___ (2014).  You can read our previous posts on AU Optronics here and here.  Posted by Tony Lathrop, January 17, 2014.

Welcome to the MVA Litigation Blog!

In an increasingly globalized and regulated business environment, companies are faced with ever-changing and complicated litigation and regulatory challenges. The Moore & Van Allen Litigation Blog provides cutting-edge information regarding developments in federal, North Carolina State, and international litigation, as well as in arbitration, regulatory enforcement, and related business practices.

Our Litigation Practice

Headquartered in the banking and energy hub of Charlotte, North Carolina, Moore & Van Allen has assembled a team of litigators with the intellectual acuity, knowledge of complex commercial transactions, and breadth of experience necessary to successfully serve our clients in all aspects of sophisticated business litigation and white collar criminal defense. Guided by trial lawyers with years of substantial state, federal, and international experience, our team addresses the diverse challenges facing our clients, ranging from general commercial litigation and matters involving employment, antitrust, trust & estate, securities or corporate governance issues, to class actions, regulatory enforcement proceedings, and government & internal investigations. We represent large Fortune 500® corporations, as well as start-ups, in banking, securities, healthcare, manufacturing, construction, energy, and other industries. We work closely with our clients to develop strategies to meet their business needs, whether that includes taking a case to trial or appeal, arbitrating a case or finding an alternative means of resolution. Read More About Our Practice and Meet the MVA Litigation Team.

Recent Authors

Connect to Recent Authors

  • Tony Lathrop:  View Tony Lathrop's Bio View Tony Lathrop's LinkedIn profileFollow @TonyLathropLaw on Twitter

  • Subscribe to Blog Via Email

    Follow MVA


    Blog Topics



    No Attorney-Client Relationship Created by Use of this Website: Neither your receipt of information from this website, nor your use of this website to contact Moore & Van Allen or one of its attorneys creates an attorney-client relationship between you and Moore & Van Allen. As a matter of policy, Moore & Van Allen does not accept a new client without first investigating for possible conflicts of interests and obtaining a signed engagement letter. (Moore & Van Allen may, for example, already represent another party involved in your matter.) Accordingly, you should not use this website to provide confidential information about a legal matter of yours to Moore & Van Allen.

    No Legal Advice Intended: This website includes information about legal issues and legal developments. Such materials are for informational purposes only and may not reflect the most current legal developments. These informational materials are not intended, and should not be taken, as legal advice on any particular set of facts or circumstances. You should contact an attorney for advice on specific legal problems. (Read All)