Ellen Greiper

While arbitration clauses are ubiquitous in contracts, they are meaningless if the parties do not move quickly enough to enforce them. In Lennar Communities Nevada, LLC v. Whalen, the plaintiff executed a residential purchase and sale agreement that included an arbitration clause. She then tripped and fell within the community. She sued the developer, and the parties participated in extensive discovery. The developer did not attempt to enforce the arbitration clause for 17 months. While waiver is disfavored, the Supreme Court concluded that the three-factor test for waiver was satisfied. First, the developer knew of the waiver. Second, they acted inconsistently with the right to arbitrate by actively litigating the case in court for such a long time. The Court then introduced a new factor to the analysis. “[C]ourts should consider the totality of the circumstances when evaluating whether a party has already litigated an issue it subsequently seeks to arbitrate.” That factor was met too. The Court next considered whether not invoking the arbitration clause earlier prejudiced the plaintiff. It expressed doubt whether that factor was valid but did not overrule it. Regardless, prejudice was found because the developer was able to obtain discovery in court that typically is unavailable in arbitration. The opinion reiterates the importance of identifying potential arbitration clauses and deciding whether to invoke them as soon as possible.

Brian Myers (Of Counsel-Washington, DC) will present the Wilson Elser Forum webinar “Class Action Settlements: Legal Issues and Practical Mechanics” on April 22, 2026. This session provides a comprehensive overview of the settlement process, from negotiation protocols and structuring class benefits to satisfying fairness requirements, managing notice obligations, and addressing attorney fee methodologies. Brian will offer guidance on surviving objections and avoiding common procedural pitfalls that can derail even well-negotiated resolutions.

Gary Pancer (Partner-Los Angeles, CA), Kelley Harman (Of Counsel-Los Angeles, CA), and Aria Aghalarpour (Associate-Los Angeles, CA) of Wilson Elser secured a complete defense verdict in Los Angeles County Superior Court, Santa Monica, on behalf of their client, The Peninsula Beverly Hills (the "Hotel"). The verdict followed a three-week-long jury trial, preceded by two weeks of extensive pre-trial motion practice and jury selection. General Counsel for the Hotel's owner, Michael Tenner, was present throughout the entirety of the proceedings. Plaintiff, a 68-year-old woman, claimed that she ordered a decaffeinated iced tea at the Hotel's Roof Garden restaurant at lunch on January 30, 2021, but was allegedly served caffeinated tea. At trial, the plaintiff attempted to establish liability through testimony from family members who were present at the lunch, as well as a friend who had worked at the Hotel for 17 years. Wilson Elser presented testimony from Hotel leadership, including the former Assistant Director of Food and Beverage, the Hotel Manager, and the Managing Director, establishing clear, reliable beverage service protocols that were followed, including the use of separate containers and visual markers to distinguish decaffeinated beverages. Plaintiff relied on expert testimony from a physician who opined that caffeine consumption caused plaintiff's cardiac symptoms. We countered with expert analysis by a research cardiologist and electrophysiology expert, who explained that it is medically implausible for a single instance of alleged caffeine consumption to reverse an ablation or cause long-term arrhythmias, and that no physiological basis supports the plaintiff's theory. After approximately two hours of deliberation, the jury returned a defense verdict, finding The Peninsula Beverly Hills was not negligent. Notably, the jury resolved the case at the first question on the verdict form and never reached the issue of causation. Post-verdict discussions confirmed the jury would have unanimously found for the defense on causation as well. The hotel is pursuing recovery of substantial expert fees and litigation costs in excess of $200,000.

Richard Bortnick (Of Counsel-Philadelphia, PA) and Charina Michaud (Associate-Chicago, IL) coauthored “Legal Analysis: Insurer Subrogation Under Scrutiny,” appearing in the April 17, 2026, posting of Claims Journal. The article analyzes two recent decisions – Axis Insurance Co. v. Barracuda Networks, Inc. and Travelers Casualty and Surety Co. of America v. Blackbaud, Inc. – that examine the scope of insurers’ subrogation rights in the wake of data security breaches. Rick and Charina explain that while the First Circuit in Axis rejected subrogation claims against a downstream vendor for lack of contractual privity, the Delaware Supreme Court in Travelers allowed similar claims to proceed where a direct contractual relationship existed. Together, the decisions clarify that subrogation claims in the cybersecurity context hinge on the existence and proper pleading of contractual relationships between the insured and the alleged wrongdoer. “Absent a contractual relationship between the insured and the alleged subrogee, a claim for indemnity or subrogation is unlikely to survive – particularly in jurisdictions that follow the reasoning in Axis.” Rick and Charina further explore how these rulings shape risk allocation across vendor chains and offer practical considerations for drafting and enforcing data security agreements. 

New York – April 20, 2026 – National law firm Wilson Elser today announced the addition of Elizabeth Olson as a partner in its Denver office, strengthening the firm's Design Professionals and Construction practices. Olson joins Wilson Elser from a regional litigation firm focused on tort and commercial litigation, bringing more than a decade of experience successfully defending complex construction, design professional, and commercial matters across various jurisdictions. “For 15 years, Wilson Elser’s Denver office has offered full-service legal support for clients in the Rocky Mountain region,” said Wilson Elser Chair Daniel J. McMahon. "Elizabeth's arrival deepens our bench in critical practice areas and reflects our continued investment in attracting top-tier talent to serve our clients." “Elizabeth’s hiring enhances our existing practices in Denver,” said Jason Melichar, regional managing partner of Wilson Elser’s Denver office. “She will work closely with Ryan Williams, our Denver-based cochair of the firm’s Design Professionals Practice, in defending architects and engineers in construction defect matters.” Olson noted that her decision to join the firm was informed by firsthand experience litigating cases opposite Wilson Elser's Denver attorneys. “The firm has an outstanding reputation in the civil litigation defense community, and I am confident that its robust platform and resources will serve my clients exceptionally well," she said. Olson's practice encompasses a broad range of civil defense matters, including construction and design professional liability, premises liability, general casualty, contract disputes, commercial litigation, product liability, and transportation. She has represented clients in state and federal courts in Colorado and Arizona. Olson earned her J.D. from Arizona State University's Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law and her B.A. in Economics and Ancient Mediterranean Civilizations from Rice University.

Peter Espey (Of Counsel-Madison, NJ) authored “Who ‘Prevails’ Under New Jersey’s Nursing Home Fee-Shifting Statute,” published April 16, 2026, on Law.com and in the New Jersey Law Journal. The article examines the recent published Appellate Division decision in Emmons v. Elmwood Hills (March 20, 2026), which clarifies when a plaintiff qualifies as a “prevailing party” under New Jersey’s Nursing Home Responsibilities and Residents’ Rights Act (NHA) for purposes of recovering attorney’s fees and costs. Peter explains that, in affirming the trial court, the appellate court held that fee-shifting under the NHA requires proof of a statutory violation, proximate cause, and resulting damages – rejecting the idea that a negligence-based recovery alone is sufficient for fee shifting. The article also highlights practical considerations, such as the critical role of thorough documentation in defending skilled nursing facility claims. Peter concludes that “Going forward, future cases may focus on what constitutes a violation of rights under the NHA.”

Matthew Foree (Of Counsel-Atlanta, GA) will present the Wilson Elser Forum webinar “The Changing Nature of Defending Class Actions in 2026” on April 21, 2026. This session examines the trends, judicial shifts, and emerging risks shaping class action defense in 2026. Matt will discuss how technology and recent rule and case-filing changes are transforming defense strategy, explore new approaches for managing exposure and leverage, and offer practical tactics for navigating a faster, more outcome- and data-driven litigation environment.

Super Lawyers® has named Taylor H. Allin (Partner-Phoenix, AZ) to the 2026 Southwest Rising Stars™ list for the sixth consecutive year. Taylor is included in the Transportation/Maritime category. His complex litigation practice includes defending a wide range of transportation matters and marine and admiralty claims. The Rising Stars lists, comprising the best attorneys 40 years old and younger or who have practiced law for 10 years or less, are published in Super Lawyers magazines and leading city and regional magazines nationwide. No more than 2.5 percent of the lawyers in the state are named to these lists.

Stephanie Yee (Associate-San Francisco, CA) and Peter Catalanotti (Partner-San Francisco, CA) secured dismissal of a highly contested legal malpractice action in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, on a special motion to strike (anti-SLAPP) filed on behalf of Wilson Elser’s attorney clients. In support of their motion, Stephanie and Peter successfully argued that the attorneys’ conduct constituted protected speech and warranted dismissal at the pleading stage. After taking the motion under submission for many months, the judge dismissed all claims against our clients and set a briefing schedule for an attorney’s fees motion.

David Ross (Partner-Washington, DC) will present the Wilson Elser Forum webinar “The Inclusion of Uninjured Members in Certified Class Actions” on April 23, 2026. This session addresses standing and predominance challenges, damages models, and the procedural complexities that arise when a certified class includes individuals who may not have suffered cognizable harm. David will analyze current case law, explore strategies for certification and decertification motions, and discuss practical solutions for managing these issues at trial.

Gary Pancer (Partner-Los Angeles, CA), Kelley Harman (Of Counsel-Los Angeles, CA), and Aria Aghalarpour (Associate-Los Angeles, CA) of Wilson Elser secured a complete defense verdict in Los Angeles County Superior Court, Santa Monica, on behalf of their client, The Peninsula Beverly Hills (the "Hotel"). The verdict followed a three-week-long jury trial, preceded by two weeks of extensive pre-trial motion practice and jury selection. General Counsel for the Hotel's owner, Michael Tenner, was present throughout the entirety of the proceedings. Plaintiff, a 68-year-old woman, claimed that she ordered a decaffeinated iced tea at the Hotel's Roof Garden restaurant at lunch on January 30, 2021, but was allegedly served caffeinated tea. At trial, the plaintiff attempted to establish liability through testimony from family members who were present at the lunch, as well as a friend who had worked at the Hotel for 17 years. Wilson Elser presented testimony from Hotel leadership, including the former Assistant Director of Food and Beverage, the Hotel Manager, and the Managing Director, establishing clear, reliable beverage service protocols that were followed, including the use of separate containers and visual markers to distinguish decaffeinated beverages. Plaintiff relied on expert testimony from a physician who opined that caffeine consumption caused plaintiff's cardiac symptoms. We countered with expert analysis by a research cardiologist and electrophysiology expert, who explained that it is medically implausible for a single instance of alleged caffeine consumption to reverse an ablation or cause long-term arrhythmias, and that no physiological basis supports the plaintiff's theory. After approximately two hours of deliberation, the jury returned a defense verdict, finding The Peninsula Beverly Hills was not negligent. Notably, the jury resolved the case at the first question on the verdict form and never reached the issue of causation. Post-verdict discussions confirmed the jury would have unanimously found for the defense on causation as well. The hotel is pursuing recovery of substantial expert fees and litigation costs in excess of $200,000.

Brian Myers (Of Counsel-Washington, DC) will present the Wilson Elser Forum webinar “Class Action Settlements: Legal Issues and Practical Mechanics” on April 22, 2026. This session provides a comprehensive overview of the settlement process, from negotiation protocols and structuring class benefits to satisfying fairness requirements, managing notice obligations, and addressing attorney fee methodologies. Brian will offer guidance on surviving objections and avoiding common procedural pitfalls that can derail even well-negotiated resolutions.

While arbitration clauses are ubiquitous in contracts, they are meaningless if the parties do not move quickly enough to enforce them. In Lennar Communities Nevada, LLC v. Whalen, the plaintiff executed a residential purchase and sale agreement that included an arbitration clause. She then tripped and fell within the community. She sued the developer, and the parties participated in extensive discovery. The developer did not attempt to enforce the arbitration clause for 17 months. While waiver is disfavored, the Supreme Court concluded that the three-factor test for waiver was satisfied. First, the developer knew of the waiver. Second, they acted inconsistently with the right to arbitrate by actively litigating the case in court for such a long time. The Court then introduced a new factor to the analysis. “[C]ourts should consider the totality of the circumstances when evaluating whether a party has already litigated an issue it subsequently seeks to arbitrate.” That factor was met too. The Court next considered whether not invoking the arbitration clause earlier prejudiced the plaintiff. It expressed doubt whether that factor was valid but did not overrule it. Regardless, prejudice was found because the developer was able to obtain discovery in court that typically is unavailable in arbitration. The opinion reiterates the importance of identifying potential arbitration clauses and deciding whether to invoke them as soon as possible.

Richard Bortnick (Of Counsel-Philadelphia, PA) and Charina Michaud (Associate-Chicago, IL) coauthored “Legal Analysis: Insurer Subrogation Under Scrutiny,” appearing in the April 17, 2026, posting of Claims Journal. The article analyzes two recent decisions – Axis Insurance Co. v. Barracuda Networks, Inc. and Travelers Casualty and Surety Co. of America v. Blackbaud, Inc. – that examine the scope of insurers’ subrogation rights in the wake of data security breaches. Rick and Charina explain that while the First Circuit in Axis rejected subrogation claims against a downstream vendor for lack of contractual privity, the Delaware Supreme Court in Travelers allowed similar claims to proceed where a direct contractual relationship existed. Together, the decisions clarify that subrogation claims in the cybersecurity context hinge on the existence and proper pleading of contractual relationships between the insured and the alleged wrongdoer. “Absent a contractual relationship between the insured and the alleged subrogee, a claim for indemnity or subrogation is unlikely to survive – particularly in jurisdictions that follow the reasoning in Axis.” Rick and Charina further explore how these rulings shape risk allocation across vendor chains and offer practical considerations for drafting and enforcing data security agreements. 

New York – April 20, 2026 – National law firm Wilson Elser today announced the addition of Elizabeth Olson as a partner in its Denver office, strengthening the firm's Design Professionals and Construction practices. Olson joins Wilson Elser from a regional litigation firm focused on tort and commercial litigation, bringing more than a decade of experience successfully defending complex construction, design professional, and commercial matters across various jurisdictions. “For 15 years, Wilson Elser’s Denver office has offered full-service legal support for clients in the Rocky Mountain region,” said Wilson Elser Chair Daniel J. McMahon. "Elizabeth's arrival deepens our bench in critical practice areas and reflects our continued investment in attracting top-tier talent to serve our clients." “Elizabeth’s hiring enhances our existing practices in Denver,” said Jason Melichar, regional managing partner of Wilson Elser’s Denver office. “She will work closely with Ryan Williams, our Denver-based cochair of the firm’s Design Professionals Practice, in defending architects and engineers in construction defect matters.” Olson noted that her decision to join the firm was informed by firsthand experience litigating cases opposite Wilson Elser's Denver attorneys. “The firm has an outstanding reputation in the civil litigation defense community, and I am confident that its robust platform and resources will serve my clients exceptionally well," she said. Olson's practice encompasses a broad range of civil defense matters, including construction and design professional liability, premises liability, general casualty, contract disputes, commercial litigation, product liability, and transportation. She has represented clients in state and federal courts in Colorado and Arizona. Olson earned her J.D. from Arizona State University's Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law and her B.A. in Economics and Ancient Mediterranean Civilizations from Rice University.

Peter Espey (Of Counsel-Madison, NJ) authored “Who ‘Prevails’ Under New Jersey’s Nursing Home Fee-Shifting Statute,” published April 16, 2026, on Law.com and in the New Jersey Law Journal. The article examines the recent published Appellate Division decision in Emmons v. Elmwood Hills (March 20, 2026), which clarifies when a plaintiff qualifies as a “prevailing party” under New Jersey’s Nursing Home Responsibilities and Residents’ Rights Act (NHA) for purposes of recovering attorney’s fees and costs. Peter explains that, in affirming the trial court, the appellate court held that fee-shifting under the NHA requires proof of a statutory violation, proximate cause, and resulting damages – rejecting the idea that a negligence-based recovery alone is sufficient for fee shifting. The article also highlights practical considerations, such as the critical role of thorough documentation in defending skilled nursing facility claims. Peter concludes that “Going forward, future cases may focus on what constitutes a violation of rights under the NHA.”

Matthew Foree (Of Counsel-Atlanta, GA) will present the Wilson Elser Forum webinar “The Changing Nature of Defending Class Actions in 2026” on April 21, 2026. This session examines the trends, judicial shifts, and emerging risks shaping class action defense in 2026. Matt will discuss how technology and recent rule and case-filing changes are transforming defense strategy, explore new approaches for managing exposure and leverage, and offer practical tactics for navigating a faster, more outcome- and data-driven litigation environment.

Super Lawyers® has named Taylor H. Allin (Partner-Phoenix, AZ) to the 2026 Southwest Rising Stars™ list for the sixth consecutive year. Taylor is included in the Transportation/Maritime category. His complex litigation practice includes defending a wide range of transportation matters and marine and admiralty claims. The Rising Stars lists, comprising the best attorneys 40 years old and younger or who have practiced law for 10 years or less, are published in Super Lawyers magazines and leading city and regional magazines nationwide. No more than 2.5 percent of the lawyers in the state are named to these lists.

Stephanie Yee (Associate-San Francisco, CA) and Peter Catalanotti (Partner-San Francisco, CA) secured dismissal of a highly contested legal malpractice action in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, on a special motion to strike (anti-SLAPP) filed on behalf of Wilson Elser’s attorney clients. In support of their motion, Stephanie and Peter successfully argued that the attorneys’ conduct constituted protected speech and warranted dismissal at the pleading stage. After taking the motion under submission for many months, the judge dismissed all claims against our clients and set a briefing schedule for an attorney’s fees motion.

David Ross (Partner-Washington, DC) will present the Wilson Elser Forum webinar “The Inclusion of Uninjured Members in Certified Class Actions” on April 23, 2026. This session addresses standing and predominance challenges, damages models, and the procedural complexities that arise when a certified class includes individuals who may not have suffered cognizable harm. David will analyze current case law, explore strategies for certification and decertification motions, and discuss practical solutions for managing these issues at trial.

Gary Pancer (Partner-Los Angeles, CA), Kelley Harman (Of Counsel-Los Angeles, CA), and Aria Aghalarpour (Associate-Los Angeles, CA) of Wilson Elser secured a complete defense verdict in Los Angeles County Superior Court, Santa Monica, on behalf of their client, The Peninsula Beverly Hills (the "Hotel"). The verdict followed a three-week-long jury trial, preceded by two weeks of extensive pre-trial motion practice and jury selection. General Counsel for the Hotel's owner, Michael Tenner, was present throughout the entirety of the proceedings. Plaintiff, a 68-year-old woman, claimed that she ordered a decaffeinated iced tea at the Hotel's Roof Garden restaurant at lunch on January 30, 2021, but was allegedly served caffeinated tea. At trial, the plaintiff attempted to establish liability through testimony from family members who were present at the lunch, as well as a friend who had worked at the Hotel for 17 years. Wilson Elser presented testimony from Hotel leadership, including the former Assistant Director of Food and Beverage, the Hotel Manager, and the Managing Director, establishing clear, reliable beverage service protocols that were followed, including the use of separate containers and visual markers to distinguish decaffeinated beverages. Plaintiff relied on expert testimony from a physician who opined that caffeine consumption caused plaintiff's cardiac symptoms. We countered with expert analysis by a research cardiologist and electrophysiology expert, who explained that it is medically implausible for a single instance of alleged caffeine consumption to reverse an ablation or cause long-term arrhythmias, and that no physiological basis supports the plaintiff's theory. After approximately two hours of deliberation, the jury returned a defense verdict, finding The Peninsula Beverly Hills was not negligent. Notably, the jury resolved the case at the first question on the verdict form and never reached the issue of causation. Post-verdict discussions confirmed the jury would have unanimously found for the defense on causation as well. The hotel is pursuing recovery of substantial expert fees and litigation costs in excess of $200,000.

Brian Myers (Of Counsel-Washington, DC) will present the Wilson Elser Forum webinar “Class Action Settlements: Legal Issues and Practical Mechanics” on April 22, 2026. This session provides a comprehensive overview of the settlement process, from negotiation protocols and structuring class benefits to satisfying fairness requirements, managing notice obligations, and addressing attorney fee methodologies. Brian will offer guidance on surviving objections and avoiding common procedural pitfalls that can derail even well-negotiated resolutions.

While arbitration clauses are ubiquitous in contracts, they are meaningless if the parties do not move quickly enough to enforce them. In Lennar Communities Nevada, LLC v. Whalen, the plaintiff executed a residential purchase and sale agreement that included an arbitration clause. She then tripped and fell within the community. She sued the developer, and the parties participated in extensive discovery. The developer did not attempt to enforce the arbitration clause for 17 months. While waiver is disfavored, the Supreme Court concluded that the three-factor test for waiver was satisfied. First, the developer knew of the waiver. Second, they acted inconsistently with the right to arbitrate by actively litigating the case in court for such a long time. The Court then introduced a new factor to the analysis. “[C]ourts should consider the totality of the circumstances when evaluating whether a party has already litigated an issue it subsequently seeks to arbitrate.” That factor was met too. The Court next considered whether not invoking the arbitration clause earlier prejudiced the plaintiff. It expressed doubt whether that factor was valid but did not overrule it. Regardless, prejudice was found because the developer was able to obtain discovery in court that typically is unavailable in arbitration. The opinion reiterates the importance of identifying potential arbitration clauses and deciding whether to invoke them as soon as possible.

Richard Bortnick (Of Counsel-Philadelphia, PA) and Charina Michaud (Associate-Chicago, IL) coauthored “Legal Analysis: Insurer Subrogation Under Scrutiny,” appearing in the April 17, 2026, posting of Claims Journal. The article analyzes two recent decisions – Axis Insurance Co. v. Barracuda Networks, Inc. and Travelers Casualty and Surety Co. of America v. Blackbaud, Inc. – that examine the scope of insurers’ subrogation rights in the wake of data security breaches. Rick and Charina explain that while the First Circuit in Axis rejected subrogation claims against a downstream vendor for lack of contractual privity, the Delaware Supreme Court in Travelers allowed similar claims to proceed where a direct contractual relationship existed. Together, the decisions clarify that subrogation claims in the cybersecurity context hinge on the existence and proper pleading of contractual relationships between the insured and the alleged wrongdoer. “Absent a contractual relationship between the insured and the alleged subrogee, a claim for indemnity or subrogation is unlikely to survive – particularly in jurisdictions that follow the reasoning in Axis.” Rick and Charina further explore how these rulings shape risk allocation across vendor chains and offer practical considerations for drafting and enforcing data security agreements. 

New York – April 20, 2026 – National law firm Wilson Elser today announced the addition of Elizabeth Olson as a partner in its Denver office, strengthening the firm's Design Professionals and Construction practices. Olson joins Wilson Elser from a regional litigation firm focused on tort and commercial litigation, bringing more than a decade of experience successfully defending complex construction, design professional, and commercial matters across various jurisdictions. “For 15 years, Wilson Elser’s Denver office has offered full-service legal support for clients in the Rocky Mountain region,” said Wilson Elser Chair Daniel J. McMahon. "Elizabeth's arrival deepens our bench in critical practice areas and reflects our continued investment in attracting top-tier talent to serve our clients." “Elizabeth’s hiring enhances our existing practices in Denver,” said Jason Melichar, regional managing partner of Wilson Elser’s Denver office. “She will work closely with Ryan Williams, our Denver-based cochair of the firm’s Design Professionals Practice, in defending architects and engineers in construction defect matters.” Olson noted that her decision to join the firm was informed by firsthand experience litigating cases opposite Wilson Elser's Denver attorneys. “The firm has an outstanding reputation in the civil litigation defense community, and I am confident that its robust platform and resources will serve my clients exceptionally well," she said. Olson's practice encompasses a broad range of civil defense matters, including construction and design professional liability, premises liability, general casualty, contract disputes, commercial litigation, product liability, and transportation. She has represented clients in state and federal courts in Colorado and Arizona. Olson earned her J.D. from Arizona State University's Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law and her B.A. in Economics and Ancient Mediterranean Civilizations from Rice University.

Peter Espey (Of Counsel-Madison, NJ) authored “Who ‘Prevails’ Under New Jersey’s Nursing Home Fee-Shifting Statute,” published April 16, 2026, on Law.com and in the New Jersey Law Journal. The article examines the recent published Appellate Division decision in Emmons v. Elmwood Hills (March 20, 2026), which clarifies when a plaintiff qualifies as a “prevailing party” under New Jersey’s Nursing Home Responsibilities and Residents’ Rights Act (NHA) for purposes of recovering attorney’s fees and costs. Peter explains that, in affirming the trial court, the appellate court held that fee-shifting under the NHA requires proof of a statutory violation, proximate cause, and resulting damages – rejecting the idea that a negligence-based recovery alone is sufficient for fee shifting. The article also highlights practical considerations, such as the critical role of thorough documentation in defending skilled nursing facility claims. Peter concludes that “Going forward, future cases may focus on what constitutes a violation of rights under the NHA.”