From the first notice of claim to the last gasp of a confirmed plan, mass-tort bankruptcies are where coverage law gets tested—and sometimes torched. Discover how to stay ahead of the fire. Read...
Lenders typically require an opinion from borrower’s counsel in connection with a financing transaction. Review this resource kit for an overview of the process of drafting and delivering legal opinions...
Time is fleeting—by definition. Before you know it, antitrust claims can become stale. And antitrust statutes of limitations (SOLs) may bar them as a matter of law. As a litigator, whether for plaintiff...
As of July 2025, 38 U.S. states and the District of Columbia have legalized sports betting in some form—either online, in-person, or both. This expansion follows the Supreme Court's 2018 decision...
Building decarbonization and energy efficiency initiatives are spreading across the country, driven by both governmental regulatory mandates and private sector goals aimed at monitoring and reducing greenhouse...
* The views expressed in externally authored materials linked or published on this site do not necessarily reflect the views of LexisNexis Legal & Professional.
A Texas federal judge, in Purl v. United States HHS, has vacated a U.S. Department of Health and Human Services rule that was finalized during the Biden administration with an aim to protecting the privacy of patients seeking abortions and gender-affirming care, ruling that the HHS didn't have the authority to "fashion special protections" in areas of "great political significance." The final rule amended HIPAA's privacy rule to bar using or sharing protected health information (PHI) to investigate or prosecute patients or providers who have obtained or provided legal reproductive healthcare, including an abortion. The agency, then under the Biden Administration, had argued in issuing the final rule that, in view of state laws prohibiting or limiting abortions and other reproductive care, the rule was needed to "better protect patient confidentiality and prevent medical records from being used against people for providing or obtaining lawful reproductive health care." Learn more about the consequences of this decision.
Read now »
Related Content
Practical Guidance Updates Featuring the latest updates from your Practical Guidance account.
PRACTICAL GUIDANCE CUSTOMER EMAIL EDITION ON THE WEB
Experience results today with practical guidance, legal research, and data-driven insights—all in one place.Experience Lexis+