On April 17, 2019, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a final “significant new use rule” (SNUR) prohibiting over one dozen uses of asbestos from returning to the marketplace without EPA review and approval.
Continue Reading

On August 29, 2018, despite industry criticism, the California state legislature passed AB 2998, which will require that levels of chemical flame retardants in covered products be below 1,000 parts per million.
Continue Reading

In a move affecting retailers in the furniture and other wood-based industries, the EPA recently issued a series of amendments to its Final Rule implementing the Formaldehyde Standards for Composite Wood Products Act, which added Title VI to the Toxic Substances Control Act. The Formaldehyde Final Rule sets formaldehyde emissions standards for composite wood products and includes requirements for the testing, third-party certification, import certification and labeling of covered products by manufacturers of those products.
Continue Reading

On June 19, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court announced important constitutional limitations on state courts’ ability to exercise specific jurisdiction over nonresidents’ claims against out-of-state defendants. The Court’s nearly unanimous decision in Bristol-Myers v. Superior Court has potentially far-reaching implications for companies facing claims brought by nonresident and resident plaintiffs in states in which those companies are neither incorporated nor maintain their principal place of business.
Continue Reading

A review of the parties’ briefing on Bristol-Myers’s petition for a writ of certiorari in Bristol-Myers Squibb v. Superior Court highlights significant questions for companies in the retail industry should the U.S. Supreme Court deny the petition and thereby allow the decision to stand as controlling law in California.
Continue Reading

On August 29, 2016, in Bristol-Myers Squibb v. Superior Court, the California Supreme Court left many retailers wondering what the 2014 decision in Daimler AG v. Bauman may mean for the exercise of specific jurisdiction in cases involving nationwide courses of business conduct affecting both resident and nonresident plaintiffs.
Continue Reading

Over the past two years, Hunton & Williams has been carefully monitoring the application of Daimler AG v. Bauman in trial and appellate courts throughout the country. To date, very few appellate decisions have analyzed the consent-based theory of general jurisdiction after Daimler. However, in the recent Brown v. Lockheed Martin Corp. opinion, the Second Circuit addressed it head on, and the opinion has important implications for companies in the retail and consumer products industry.
Continue Reading