Litigation, Oil & Gas, Product Liability

Tuesday, November 06, 2007

About

In the wake of three major Supreme Court cases (Mass. v. EPA, Environmental Defense v. Duke, and U.S. v. Atlantic Research), every company that manufactures chemicals or uses chemical products is being urged to undertake proactive clean-up initiatives, and develop new crisis management strategies and techniques.

Even if the company is engaging in best practices to prevent litigation, sometimes it occurs inevitably. If the case does not settle, you need to be armed with the best tactics to litigate the claim from the pre-trial phase, all the way through closing arguments. Whatever specific chemical is involved, the defense attorney's main objective is to negate a causal connection between the chemical and the plaintiff's harm.

In a series of highly practical sessions, outside counsel, scientists, and in-house counsel at major chemical companies will come together to demonstrate how they tackle causation, confusing scientific information, community relations, e-discovery, and other issues in high-profile chemical products liability cases. The expert faculty included in this publication from the American Conference Institute's 2nd Annual Conference on Preventing and Defending Chemical Products Liability bring you the most practical, up-to-date information on:

  • Implementing safe in-house practices for working with chemicals to help ensure litigation avoidance
  • Ensuring exclusion from evidence of unnecessary or discriminatory scientific/medical evidence
  • Introducing expert testimony, medical data, and scientific information to demonstrate that a class action is not superior
  • Anticipating e-discovery demands when communicating with regulatory environmental bodies
  • Evaluating vapor impact on buildings and homes to establish a lack of causation in vapor intrusion claims
  • Avoiding breaches of common ethical standards in chemical products liability cases

Contents & Contributors

About

In the wake of three major Supreme Court cases (Mass. v. EPA, Environmental Defense v. Duke, and U.S. v. Atlantic Research), every company that manufactures chemicals or uses chemical products is being urged to undertake proactive clean-up initiatives, and develop new crisis management strategies and techniques.

Even if the company is engaging in best practices to prevent litigation, sometimes it occurs inevitably. If the case does not settle, you need to be armed with the best tactics to litigate the claim from the pre-trial phase, all the way through closing arguments. Whatever specific chemical is involved, the defense attorney's main objective is to negate a causal connection between the chemical and the plaintiff's harm.

In a series of highly practical sessions, outside counsel, scientists, and in-house counsel at major chemical companies will come together to demonstrate how they tackle causation, confusing scientific information, community relations, e-discovery, and other issues in high-profile chemical products liability cases. The expert faculty included in this publication from the American Conference Institute's 2nd Annual Conference on Preventing and Defending Chemical Products Liability bring you the most practical, up-to-date information on:

  • Implementing safe in-house practices for working with chemicals to help ensure litigation avoidance
  • Ensuring exclusion from evidence of unnecessary or discriminatory scientific/medical evidence
  • Introducing expert testimony, medical data, and scientific information to demonstrate that a class action is not superior
  • Anticipating e-discovery demands when communicating with regulatory environmental bodies
  • Evaluating vapor impact on buildings and homes to establish a lack of causation in vapor intrusion claims
  • Avoiding breaches of common ethical standards in chemical products liability cases

Contents & Contributors

THE BUSINESS IMPACT OF RECENT U.S. SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
Richard Faulk, Gardere Wynne Sewell LLP (Houston, TX)
Dale Stephenson, Squire, Sanders & Dempsey, LLP
(Cleveland, OH & Riyadh, Saudi Arabia)

PUBLIC NUISANCE: “A MONSTER THAT WOULD DEVOUR” PRODUCT MANUFACTURERS
Prof. Donald Gifford, University of Maryland School of Law (Baltimore, MD)

ENSURING PROPER CRISIS MANAGEMENT TO AVOID A MASS CHEMICAL LITIGATION DISASTER
Cynthia Weiss Antonucci, Harris Beach PLLC (New York, NY)

USING RISK ASSESSMENT METHODS TO AVOID A MASS CHEMICAL LITIGATION DISASTER
Barb Epstien, MPH, CIH, ChemRisk, Inc. (Atlanta, GA)

COMMUNICATIONS: STRATEGY AND TACTICS
Denis Calabrese, Denis Calabrese Company (Houston, TX)

USING PRE-TRIAL PRACTICE TO THE DEFENSE'S ADVANTAGE
Todd Craun, Airgas, Inc. (Radnor, PA)
Sean P. Wajert, Dechert LLP (Philadelphia, PA)

EVALUATING THE VALIDITY OF VAPOR INTRUSION CLAIMS
David Folkes, EnviroGroup Limited (Centennial, CO)

VAPOR INTRUSION: LIABILITY DETERMINATION IS KEY TO LIABILITY MANAGEMENT
Kevin Colbert, Gardere Wynne & Sewell, LLP (Houston, TX)

ESTABLISHING A LACK OF MEDICAL CAUSATION WITH RESPECT TO THE CHEMICAL IN QUESTION Michael Rettig, Hercules Incorporated (Wilmington, DE)

CAUSATION IN A CHEMICAL PRODUCTS LIABILITY CASE: A CASE STUDY Alan Klein, Duane Morris LLP (Philadelphia, PA)

MAINTAINING HIGH ETHICAL STANDARDS IN CHEMICAL LITIGATION Marsha Piccone, Wheeler Trigg Kennedy LLP (Denver, CO)



DOCUMENT TYPES: PRESENTATIONS AVAILABLE: 0