The Most Important Supreme Court Business Decision You Haven't Heard Of
Monday, August 3, 2009
The US Supreme Court decision in the Term just ended that is likely to have the most significant impact on businesses did not come in a business case. Ashcroft v. Iqbal involved damages claims relating to federal detention policies following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, but it defined with new specificity the standard that a federal district court should apply when a motion to dismiss challenges the sufficiency of a complaint's allegations. Building on its 2007 decision in Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, which addressed pleading in the antitrust context, the Court made clear that Twombly's analysis is not limited to antitrust, but rather extends to all cases in federal court, and added more detail about the rigorous review that a district court should conduct. Iqbal and Twombly represent a significant change from the standard many district courts had applied in assessing the sufficiency of a complaint.
Please join Mayer Brown LLP partners for a webinar focused on the implications of the Iqbal decision, including:
- A detailed discussion of the pleading standard outlined in Twombly and Iqbal
- Practical suggestions for crafting motions to dismiss to make most effective use of these new rulings
- Specific examples of the kinds of cases in which a motion to dismiss based on Twombly and Iqbal is most likely to be successful
Andrew S. Marovitz
Miriam R. Nemetz
Andrew J. Pincus
Presentation Slides (PDF)
Learn more about our Antitrust & Competition and Supreme Court & Appellate groups.