Lisa Handler Ackerman

Wilson Elser trial attorneys from across the firm – from accomplished first chairs to emerging litigators – gathered in the firm’s New York City office on March 12 and 13 for the 2026 Wilson Elser Mock Trial Invitational. In this latest installment of the firm’s mock trial competitions, the Invitational brought together members of the firm’s National Trial Team (NTT), with cochairs Eugene Boulé and Mat Ross at the helm, to serve as judges and mentors. This year’s judges included Robin Gregory, Tim Sheehan, Michael Gallay, Tom Comer, Phil Quaranta, and Paul Karp. In recognition of the program’s value and impact, 62 participants – including the firm’s attorneys, paralegals, and professional staff – took part in the intensive courtroom simulation, which was designed to replicate the pace, pressure, and unpredictability of actual trial proceedings. Participants assumed a range of roles, serving as trial lawyers, witnesses, jurors, and observers.  Conducted live and in person, the Invitational challenged the 24 attorney finalists representing 18 offices from across the firm to think strategically, adapt in real time, and respond effectively to unexpected developments introduced throughout the trial exercises. From witness examinations and evidentiary disputes to shifting trial dynamics, participants were tested on the same skills demanded in high-stakes litigation nationwide. As with all Wilson Elser NTT training initiatives, attorneys benefited from direct feedback and insight from the firm’s seasoned trial lawyers, whose collective experience spans countless jury trials and appearances in state and federal courts. The Competition The Invitational opened with mock trials conducted simultaneously, with teams of plaintiff and defense counsel presenting their cases in a format designed to closely track real courtroom proceedings. Participants delivered opening statements, conducted direct and cross-examinations, presented closing arguments, and received mock jury verdicts following deliberations. After the trial sessions concluded, Boulé, Ross, and the program judges conferred to evaluate the performances and, along with attorney observers, provided participants with detailed feedback in the days that followed. The critiques reflected the realities of trial practice and were direct, thoughtful, and focused on helping attorneys sharpen their courtroom skills and strategic decision-making. Developed entirely in-house, the Mock Trial Invitational is structured specifically to meet the demands of Wilson Elser’s litigation practice and the firm’s longstanding commitment to trial excellence. The program provides attorneys with practical, experience-driven training in a setting that mirrors the challenges of active litigation while fostering mentorship and professional growth. The Invitational remains a central component of the firm’s broader trial training initiatives, which are designed to ensure that Wilson Elser attorneys are prepared to advocate effectively for clients in the courtroom.

Q: Can a one-size-fits-all separation agreement expose a company to risk? A: Yes, using a uniform separation agreement may be efficient, but it can create legal exposure if not carefully tailored. Below are key considerations that will help employers ensure their separation agreements are legally compliant.  1. Individuals Aged 40-plus Trigger Additional Requirements If the impacted individual is 40 years or older, the Older Workers Benefit Protection Act of 1990 (“the OWBPA”), which amended the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, applies. The OWBPA requires that a waiver be “knowing and voluntary,” which requires, at a minimum:  Clear, written, plain language Geared to the individual’s level of understanding, accounting for their level of comprehension and education No technical jargon or long, complex sentences No misleading statements or misinformation Explicit reference to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act in connection with rights or claims being waived No waiver of future rights or claims Recommendation to consult with an attorney before executing the agreement At least 21 days to consider (or 45 days if a group layoff) 7-day revocation period after signing the agreement Additional consideration (e.g., something of value) beyond what the individual is already owed Tips: The 7-day revocation period cannot be shortened. The employer should pay consideration until after the revocation period expires. The individual may sign before the 21 or 45-day time period but only if voluntary and without inducement. Final compensation, business expenses the employer owes the individual, or accrued paid time off benefits legally owed to the individual do not count as consideration. 2. Group Layoffs Involving At Least One  Employee Aged 40-plus Require Additional Disclosures For company layoffs through “an exit incentive program” or “other termination layoff program” consisting of two or more employees (where at least one is 40-plus), the OWBPA imposes additional requirements: The review period increases to 45 days. Employers must provide detailed disclosures containing: the decisional unit; eligibility factors and selection criteria; job titles and ages of all individuals in the decisional unit selected for layoff; job titles and ages of all individuals in the decisional unit not selected for layoff. Tips: These disclosure requirements are in addition to the OWBPA requirements for a knowing and voluntary waiver in No. 1. The decisional unit is the class, unit, or group of employees from which the employer chose who was or was not selected for the program. Careful consideration should be given to the OWBPA notice to ensure compliance with the applicable federal law.  3. State and Local Laws Where Employees Work Varies State laws and local ordinances have varying protected classifications in addition to those protected by federal law (e.g., sex, pregnancy, age, race, color, national origin, ancestry, religion, disability, genetic information).  For example, the Illinois Human Rights Act affords protection to individuals based on their marital status, arrest record, unfavorable military discharge, family responsibilities, and reproductive health decisions. In Michigan, individuals are afforded protection based on their marital status, height, and weight. Indeed, many states, such as California, Colorado, New York, and North Dakota offer protection for lawful, off-duty conduct. Other states afford protection for off-duty cannabis use, off-duty tobacco use, and political activity/speech. Employers should ensure the waiver/release addresses all applicable protected classes, which may be accomplished by a general catchall statement such as “all other classes protected under applicable state or local laws.” Certain states have enacted legislation governing separation agreements. The Illinois Workplace Transparency Act (the IWTA) requires valid, bargained-for consideration in exchange for a confidentiality provision separate from consideration supporting a waiver/release of claims. Under the IWTA, an employer may not unilaterally include a statement that confidentiality is the employee’s preference or include confidentiality provisions related to “future or prospective concerted activity related to workplace conditions.” The IWTA also requires safeguards for confidentiality provisions, including written agreements, voluntary preferences, notice of the right to consult counsel, and 21-day review/7-day revocation periods. New York has enacted similar legislation. States, such as Illinois, California, Colorado, Washington, New York, Maine, and Oregon limit the use of confidentiality and non-disparagement provisions to prevent individuals from concealing unlawful employment practices.  Consideration may be given to naming state and local laws to be included in the release/waiver, in addition to the typical anti-discrimination laws, which can be implicated in an employment relationship. These may include biometric information privacy laws, data breach laws, fair debt and credit reporting acts, and leave laws. Several states (e.g., California, Colorado, Illinois) have enacted legislation restricting or regulating choice of law and forum selection provisions to ensure employees are protected by the laws of the state where they work and not required to travel to a forum where they have no connection to litigate a dispute. Washington state has enacted such protections in the context of adjudicating noncompetition covenants and nondisclosure or nondisparagement provisions. 4.  Restrictive Covenants Must Be Carefully Tailored An employer may desire to include more robust provisions, such as non-competition, nondisparagement, and confidentiality provisions (drafted in accordance with applicable state and federal law) based on the individual’s position or access to confidential information. Tip: In addition to state laws enacted to prevent overreaching confidentiality and non-disparagement provisions, the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) also restricts these provisions insofar as they interfere with individuals' ability to engage in protected concerted activity. The NLRA’s protections in this regard apply to both unionized and non-unionized, non-supervisory employees and applicants.      5. Existing Agreements Can Affect the Separation Agreement  Prior agreements between the employee and the company may impact the separation agreement. Prior agreements may include an employment agreement, equity agreement, work-for-hire agreement, non-competition agreement, or arbitration agreement.   Tips: The “complete agreement” (or integration provision) of the separation agreement may need to address prior agreements, and if appropriate, confirm the prior agreements remain in effect. Ensure the agreements have consistent provisions (e.g., arbitration provisions, forum selection clauses, choice of law, etc.). Use the separation agreement to update or amend prior agreements that may contain unenforceable provisions. 6. The Circumstances of Separation Shape the Agreement A separation agreement for a current employee:  should clarify the employee’s last day worked include the requirement that the employee not sign the agreement until after the last day worked  should distinguish between the employee’s final compensation and accrued paid time off (if required to be paid by state law) versus the consideration, along with a statement confirming the employee will be paid the former even if the employee chooses not to sign the separation agreement If a separation agreement is negotiated after the individual engaged in protected activity or asserted a claim, the employer likely wants to address that in the agreement. 7. Severance Practices Should Remain Consistent Employers should refer to existing policies and practices in place regarding the amount of severance pay (or consideration) offered to impacted individuals. In the absence of such policies, employers should ensure that the amount of severance offered is tied to legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons, such as tenure, position, proximity in time of multiple layoffs/terminations, and perhaps even litigation risk. Tip: Payment of varying amounts of benefits, such as severance (e.g., consideration for a waiver agreement), may provide a basis for a discrimination claim when certain protected classes are paid more generously. This is true even when the employer is not legally required to provide severance.  8. Special Rules Apply for Union Employees Offering a separation agreement to a union member requires careful review of, inter alia, the governing collective bargaining agreement and the NLRA. Offering severance to a union member may first require negotiating with the union to avoid a claim of unfair labor practices. Also, the collective bargaining agreement may include agreed-upon selection for layoff, progressive discipline, conduct that constitutes a terminable offense, or formulas for determining severance. Of course, ensuring nondisparagement, confidentiality, and arbitration provisions do not run afoul of the NLRA are also imperative. It is always best practice to have legal counsel review separation agreements to ensure the unique facts and circumstances and applicable law are considered. Wilson Elser’s national Employment and Labor Team is available for further guidance on implementing individual terminations or layoffs of any size. This article is for informational purposes only and should not be used in place of seeking legal guidance, nor does it constitute legal advice or the creation of an attorney-client relationship.    

Jacqueline Hattar (Partner-White Plains, NY) will co-host the Pace Women's Justice Center (PWJC) "Cocktails for a Cause" fundraiser on May 28, 2026, at the Barley Beach House in Rye, New York. The event supports the PWJC's commitment to increasing access to justice by providing free legal services to victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, and elder abuse. The funds raised will support the PWJC’s critical services for survivors of abuse. Jackie is a long-time PWJC Advisory Board member and a past recipient of the Center's “Making A Difference” award. She also serves on the Board of Visitors at the Elisabeth Haub School of Law at Pace University. The PWJC, housed at the Elisabeth Haub School of Law in White Plains, New York, is a self-funded, nonprofit legal center that falls under Pace University's 501(c)(3) status. The Center conducts or participates in more than 140 training and outreach events annually, providing free legal services to some 3,500 survivors of domestic violence, sexual assault, and elder abuse. Serving Westchester and Putnam Counties, the PWJC's mission is to pursue justice for victims and prevent abuse by offering quality legal services, fostering community partnerships, and promoting education and awareness. 

Kadeem Wolliaston (Associate-Albany, NY) and Lori Semlies (Partner-White Plains, NY) successfully collaborated in defending a wrongful death action against a nursing home involving claims for negligence, gross negligence, conscious pain and suffering, and alleged failures relating to staffing, resident care, dignity, comfort, and COVID-19 protocols. The estate claimed that the facility failed to properly care for a resident during his admission and that those alleged failures contributed to his death. Following discovery, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the action. The medical records reflected that the resident tested positive for COVID-19, was unvaccinated, and repeatedly declined available treatment, including monoclonal antibodies, antivirals, and transfer to the hospital. The records further showed that the resident wanted comfort care and was making his own treatment decisions. At deposition, the plaintiff confirmed that the resident was alert, oriented, and capable of making his own decisions. She also acknowledged that he had longstanding personal views regarding medical treatment, was unlikely to change his mind, and that no one would have been able to convince him to accept additional COVID-19 treatment. The deposition also revealed that the plaintiff had maintained handwritten notes during the resident’s admission. A further deposition was pursued to address those notes directly. That testimony confirmed that the notes did not document complaints regarding the facility’s care but instead contained general questions for staff regarding food intake, comfort care medication, and the resident’s condition. The notes also confirmed that the resident declined additional treatment and that this was consistent with his wishes. Importantly, the plaintiff ultimately testified that the lawsuit was not based on the facility’s handling of COVID-19. Rather, her concerns related to the resident’s surroundings, including cleanliness, hydration, and therapy delays. That admission, combined with the medical records and prior testimony, confirmed that there was no evidence that the resident’s death was caused by any failure to provide COVID-19 treatment or prevention measures. The plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the action rather than proceed toward summary judgment. The result reinforces an important lesson in litigation: favorable records are only part of the defense. The testimony must be developed in a way that confirms the record, narrows the issues, and prevents generalized allegations from surviving discovery. A well-prepared deposition can be the difference between defending a claim through motion practice and positioning the case for dismissal.

A massive 320-page class action complaint filed on May 4, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois has the attention of the cannabis sector. The insurance professionals who underwrite it should also be paying close attention. The case, Murray et al. v. Cresco Labs Inc. et al., represents the most ambitious legal assault yet on the marketing practices of major cannabis multistate operators (MSOs). The complaint makes explicit comparisons to the litigation playbook against “Big Tobacco” in the 1990s. With claims across 12 states and spanning allegations of Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO), consumer fraud, breach of warranty, negligent misrepresentation and more, this lawsuit signals a new era of litigation risk that could reshape how cannabis companies are underwritten and insured. What the Case is About Murray v. Cresco is a consumer class action brought by more than 40 named plaintiffs on behalf of recreational cannabis purchasers in Arizona, Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Rhode Island, and Virginia. The defendants are three of the nation's largest cannabis MSOs: Cresco Labs Inc., Green Thumb Industries Inc. and Verano Holdings Corp. Each defendant is a vertically-integrated cannabis operator, meaning they cultivate, process, distribute and sell cannabis products under a portfolio of consumer-facing brands. Cresco sells under brands like Sunnyside, High Supply, FloraCal, and Wonder Wellness; Green Thumb uses brands like Rhythm, Dogwalkers, Good Green and Rise; Verano operates under Zen Leaf, Encore Edibles, BITS and Cabbage Club, among others. The case was filed under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) in the Northern District of Illinois, the location of the defendants’ principal places of business. The complaint explicitly carves out claims related to physician-prescribed medical cannabis, focusing solely on adult-use purchases. A companion case targeting Curaleaf Holdings was filed the same day in the District of Connecticut. The Central Narrative Plaintiffs allege that the defendants knew, or should have known, that cannabis products pose serious mental and physical health risks, yet chose to market those same products as safe, therapeutic, and even medicinal. The complaint paints a picture of an industry that borrowed from Big Tobacco's playbook, allegedly sponsoring less-than-rigorous research to generate consumer friendly health claims while burying the mounting scientific evidence of harm. As the complaint puts it, the defendants “deceptively marketed cannabis as medicine capable of alleviating or treating the very mental health disorders” they “knew or should have known were caused or exacerbated by the use of their products.” The Liability Theories The core liability theory is the federal RICO cause of action. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants operated an “enterprise” engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity, including dealing in controlled substances illegal under federal law, mail fraud, wire fraud, and monetary transactions in criminally derived property. The RICO claim is significant because it opens the door to potential treble damages, meaning any actual damages could be tripled, plus attorneys' fees. The U.S. Supreme Court's 2025 decision in Medical Marijuana, Inc. v. Horn confirmed that RICO can apply to economic harms tied to mislabeled cannabis products. The complaint also asserts state-specific consumer protection claims in all 12 states where the representative plaintiffs reside. These include violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, the Michigan Consumer Protection Act, New York's General Business Law Section 349, the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act, and analogous statutes in each remaining jurisdiction. Across all states, plaintiffs argued that defendants made affirmative misrepresentations about health benefits while concealing known risks, inducing consumers to purchase products they otherwise would not have bought, or to overpay for them. The complaint further alleges breach of express and implied warranties under each state’s version of the Uniform Commercial Code. By representing their products as treating depression, anxiety, PTSD, pain and other conditions, defendants allegedly created and violated express warranties that the products would perform as described. Implied warranty claims assert that cannabis products marketed as wellness aids were not “fit for the ordinary purposes for which such goods are used.” Finally, negligent misrepresentation claims target the defendants’ alleged failure to exercise reasonable care in communicating health information to consumers. The Health Science at the Heart of the Case The factual backbone of the complaint runs over a hundred pages of citations to various scientific studies and papers. The plaintiffs reference research alleging connections of cannabis use to psychosis, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, depression, suicidal ideation, and anxiety. The complaint cites a 2025 study finding that states with open recreational dispensaries experienced a 12 percent increase in admissions to state mental health facilities for psychotic disorders. A 2021 Danish study is also referenced for its finding that schizophrenia cases associated with cannabis use disorder increased 300 percent to 400 percent over 20 years as potency doubled. The complaint also cites cardiovascular studies, including a 2025 meta-analysis that reportedly found cannabis use doubled the risk of cardiovascular death and increased stroke risk by 20 percent. Another cited study estimates the odds of heart attack among cannabis users at more than six times higher than non-users. The complaint also highlights prenatal risks, citing a 2025 review linking cannabis use during pregnancy to increased risk of miscarriage, stillbirth, and preterm birth. Cannabis hyperemesis syndrome (CHS) and cannabis use disorder (CUD) are include in the complaint’s litany of health harms. Focus on Industry Awareness The complaint emphasizes that these health risks are not new discoveries. It alleges that the defendants had “actual and constructive knowledge” of these dangers, derived from years of publicly available peer-reviewed studies and governmental advisories, yet “failed to adequately warn their customers.” Instead, plaintiffs contend the defendants went in the opposite direction by marketing cannabis as a remedy for the conditions it allegedly makes worse. The Playbook is Growing The lead attorney in Murray v. Cresco, Patrick Kenneally, is a former Illinois county prosecutor with a track record of taking on cannabis companies. In 2023, he compelled dispensaries in McHenry County, Illinois to post in-store warnings about cannabis-related mental health risks, a first in the country, and to fund a billboard campaign linking cannabis to suicide and schizophrenia. An earlier, similar lawsuit against Verano was dismissed in March 2026, but the new complaint appears broader and more detailed. A spokesperson for Verano told MJBizDaily that the suit “mirrors claims that have been rejected by courts in similar legal actions against multistate operators in the industry earlier this year.” Whether the 320-page complaint overcomes those defenses remains to be seen. Rescheduling Adds Fuel The timing is notable. On April 23, 2026, the Department of Justice issued an order rescheduling state-licensed medical marijuana and FDA-approved cannabis products to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). Greater federal legitimacy may bring greater legal exposure. Rescheduling is likely to expand market access and raise expectations for product safety and accurate labeling, making negligence and consumer protection claims more likely for compliance lapses. Canada Offers a Preview Canada legalized recreational cannabis nationally in 2018, and its litigation experience since then is instructive. The country has seen a wave of product liability class actions, including Downton v. Organigram Holdings, the first certified cannabis product liability class action in Canada, involving pesticide contamination. Proposed actions have also targeted major Canadian producers over inadequate risk disclosures related to CHS. The pattern is consistent with what now appears to be emerging in the United States – consumer litigation follows the market opening up. Why This Matters for Cannabis Insurers For insurance professionals, Murray v. Cresco crystallizes several risks that the industry has long discussed in the abstract. The case represents a concrete, large-scale litigation event with the potential for enormous exposure. The RICO claim alone, with its treble-damage multiplier, could transform a significant jury verdict into a catastrophic one. Class certification across 12 states would dramatically multiply the defendant pool and the aggregate damages. The underwriting on cannabis product liability has, to date, focused on potential contamination, mislabeling, and the occasional exposure or ingestion-based bodily injury claim. Murray v. Cresco, however, introduces a different species of claim, one rooted in marketing conduct rather than product defect in the traditional sense. Currently, the insurance industry is largely insulated from large consumer class actions like Murray v. Cresco. Many cannabis policies contain broad health-hazard exclusions, which could deny coverage for claims involving specified adverse health effects from cannabis products. Class action exclusions are common, as are exclusions for statutory penalties like treble damages under RICO and state consumer protection awards. RICO-based claims are also vulnerable to criminal-acts exclusions or specific carve-outs for racketeering-related conduct. Coverage Disputes on the Horizon Notwithstanding this insulation, insurers should expect that defendants in cases like Murray will tender claims under their commercial general liability (CGL) policies, products completed operations policies, directors and officers (D&O) policies, and any specialty cannabis coverage they hold. The question of whether deceptive marketing and failure-to-warn allegations fall within a products-completed operations hazard, an advertising injury provision, or some other coverage grant will likely be fiercely contested. What Underwriters Should be Asking Going forward, underwriters writing cannabis risks should scrutinize their insureds' marketing practices with the same focus they currently bring to product testing and labeling. Documented testing integrity, warning protocols, supply-chain oversight, and recall history are all important along with marketing discipline. Policies should be reviewed for RICO and state consumer statute exposure. Underwriters should pay attention to emerging scientific studies on the health effect of cannabis use. Insureds that continue to make unsupported health claims, the kind at the center of Murray v. Cresco, present a different risk profile than those that keep their marketing factual and scientifically supported. Conclusion Murray v. Cresco may or may not succeed on the merits. Defendants will raise formidable challenges, including preemption arguments, standing issues, the difficulty of class certification across a dozen state consumer-protection regimes, causation defenses and the still-evolving science around cannabis and health. But the complaint’s sheer scale, its RICO backbone, and its explicit comparisons to Big Tobacco litigation signal that the era of treating cannabis product liability as a hypothetical future risk is over. For insurers and their cannabis policyholders, the takeaway is practical and immediate. Marketing claims are now a front-line litigation target, and the industry needs to treat them accordingly. Risk-mitigation programs should include compliance audits of all consumer-facing health claims, robust product warnings modeled on the warnings that accompany over-the-counter medical products, and honest internal assessments of what the science supports. Meanwhile, insurers should be reviewing policy language to understand their own exposure in the event that lawsuits like this one multiply. This article was published in the May 18, 2026, posting of Insurance Journal.

Tommy Spitaletto (Partner-Dallas, TX), and Siobhán Mueller (Of Counsel-New York, NY) will present the Wilson Elser Forum webinar “Navigating Related Claims in Directors and Officers (D&O) Insurance Policies” on May 21, 2026. This presentation provides a comprehensive overview of related claims and interrelated wrongful acts provisions in Directors and Officers (D&O) policies. The presenters will explain how these provisions operate to aggregate multiple claims, such as multiple lawsuits, into a single claim, often deemed first made at the earliest date among them. The session explores how courts interpret “relatedness,” and how those interpretations can affect how multiple claims are grouped, which policy period applies, and the extent of coverage available to the insured. The presenters also address key variables, including the specific D&O policy language, the underlying facts that potentially relate the matters, and the governing jurisdiction’s interpretive approach. The session also examines recent case law on the litigation of these D&O provisions, the implications for coverage, and offers practical guidance and key takeaways to help insurers and underwriters navigate them.

Thomas Gentile (Partner-Madison, NJ) and Neil Prupis (Partner-Madison, NJ) prevailed on behalf of their client in on a motion to dismiss before the New York Supreme Court, Suffolk County. The case presented the question of whether an individual nondomiciliary's guarantee of an out-of-state corporation’s debt to a New York corporation confers personal jurisdiction in New York over the nondomiciliary guarantor.  Although New York's appellate Departments (as well as federal courts in New York) are divided on this issue, the court granted the motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, citing both favorable case law as well as arguments regarding the insufficiency of the plaintiff's allegations concerning the nondomiciliary guarantor’s contacts with New York.

Bryce Adams (Partner-Portland, OR), Lisa Wilson (Partner-Dallas, TX), and Jane Young (Denver, CO) will present the Wilson Elser Forum webinar “Bad Faith Across the Badlands” on May 19, 2026. This presentation explores extra-contractual claims made in Colorado, Oregon, Texas, and Washington. The presenters focus their discussion on the current trends and potential pitfalls in these jurisdictions, including those that exist before the lawsuit is even filed. Also addressed are the standards for bad faith in these states, the exposure these claims create, and particularly dangerous types of damages unique to these jurisdictions.

Alan Fiedel (Partner-Miami, FL) authored “Recent Florida Appellate Decision Highlights Evolving Issues in Service on Foreign Defendants,” appearing in the May 13, 2026, posting of Law.com. The article examines the evolving rules governing international service of process and explores the Forsun International Group v. DRT Holdings appellate decision, in which Florida’s Third District Court of Appeal upheld a trial court’s authorization of service by email on foreign parties under Section 48.197 of the Florida Statutes. Although the case arose in a post-judgment context, Alan explains that the ruling may have broader implications for cross-border commercial disputes, product liability matters, and judgment enforcement proceedings involving foreign defendants. The author also addresses the challenges associated with traditional international service methods, including Hague Convention procedures and letters rogatory, and highlights the court’s recognition that email service may be appropriate where it is reasonably calculated to provide notice and is not prohibited by international agreement. The article further emphasizes that due process remains the governing principle and that litigants seeking alternative service methods must still demonstrate that the proposed email address is reliable, active, and genuinely connected to the defendant.  Alan concludes that “courts are likely to confront additional requests for alternative service methods that reflect how parties actually communicate in today’s marketplace,” highlighting the growing role of technology-driven solutions in international litigation.

BTI Consulting Group recently named Wilson Elser among the top firms for associate satisfaction in its “BTI Associate Satisfaction A-Listers 2026” report. Based on more than 5,000 associate responses, BTI recognized 189 law firms for fostering strong associate job satisfaction, with Wilson Elser ranking among the top 36 firms consistently recognized for creating a positive and supportive work environment. The report found that associates increasingly value factors beyond compensation, including meaningful training, mentorship, clear career development opportunities, strong job satisfaction, and active partner investment in associate success. BTI also highlighted the importance of targeted support for women associates and firms’ demonstrated commitment to long-term career growth. The recognition underscores Wilson Elser’s continued focus on cultivating a workplace where associates feel supported, engaged, and positioned for professional success in an increasingly demanding legal industry.

Jacqueline Hattar (Partner-White Plains, NY) will co-host the Pace Women's Justice Center (PWJC) "Cocktails for a Cause" fundraiser on May 28, 2026, at the Barley Beach House in Rye, New York. The event supports the PWJC's commitment to increasing access to justice by providing free legal services to victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, and elder abuse. The funds raised will support the PWJC’s critical services for survivors of abuse. Jackie is a long-time PWJC Advisory Board member and a past recipient of the Center's “Making A Difference” award. She also serves on the Board of Visitors at the Elisabeth Haub School of Law at Pace University. The PWJC, housed at the Elisabeth Haub School of Law in White Plains, New York, is a self-funded, nonprofit legal center that falls under Pace University's 501(c)(3) status. The Center conducts or participates in more than 140 training and outreach events annually, providing free legal services to some 3,500 survivors of domestic violence, sexual assault, and elder abuse. Serving Westchester and Putnam Counties, the PWJC's mission is to pursue justice for victims and prevent abuse by offering quality legal services, fostering community partnerships, and promoting education and awareness. 

Q: Can a one-size-fits-all separation agreement expose a company to risk? A: Yes, using a uniform separation agreement may be efficient, but it can create legal exposure if not carefully tailored. Below are key considerations that will help employers ensure their separation agreements are legally compliant.  1. Individuals Aged 40-plus Trigger Additional Requirements If the impacted individual is 40 years or older, the Older Workers Benefit Protection Act of 1990 (“the OWBPA”), which amended the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, applies. The OWBPA requires that a waiver be “knowing and voluntary,” which requires, at a minimum:  Clear, written, plain language Geared to the individual’s level of understanding, accounting for their level of comprehension and education No technical jargon or long, complex sentences No misleading statements or misinformation Explicit reference to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act in connection with rights or claims being waived No waiver of future rights or claims Recommendation to consult with an attorney before executing the agreement At least 21 days to consider (or 45 days if a group layoff) 7-day revocation period after signing the agreement Additional consideration (e.g., something of value) beyond what the individual is already owed Tips: The 7-day revocation period cannot be shortened. The employer should pay consideration until after the revocation period expires. The individual may sign before the 21 or 45-day time period but only if voluntary and without inducement. Final compensation, business expenses the employer owes the individual, or accrued paid time off benefits legally owed to the individual do not count as consideration. 2. Group Layoffs Involving At Least One  Employee Aged 40-plus Require Additional Disclosures For company layoffs through “an exit incentive program” or “other termination layoff program” consisting of two or more employees (where at least one is 40-plus), the OWBPA imposes additional requirements: The review period increases to 45 days. Employers must provide detailed disclosures containing: the decisional unit; eligibility factors and selection criteria; job titles and ages of all individuals in the decisional unit selected for layoff; job titles and ages of all individuals in the decisional unit not selected for layoff. Tips: These disclosure requirements are in addition to the OWBPA requirements for a knowing and voluntary waiver in No. 1. The decisional unit is the class, unit, or group of employees from which the employer chose who was or was not selected for the program. Careful consideration should be given to the OWBPA notice to ensure compliance with the applicable federal law.  3. State and Local Laws Where Employees Work Varies State laws and local ordinances have varying protected classifications in addition to those protected by federal law (e.g., sex, pregnancy, age, race, color, national origin, ancestry, religion, disability, genetic information).  For example, the Illinois Human Rights Act affords protection to individuals based on their marital status, arrest record, unfavorable military discharge, family responsibilities, and reproductive health decisions. In Michigan, individuals are afforded protection based on their marital status, height, and weight. Indeed, many states, such as California, Colorado, New York, and North Dakota offer protection for lawful, off-duty conduct. Other states afford protection for off-duty cannabis use, off-duty tobacco use, and political activity/speech. Employers should ensure the waiver/release addresses all applicable protected classes, which may be accomplished by a general catchall statement such as “all other classes protected under applicable state or local laws.” Certain states have enacted legislation governing separation agreements. The Illinois Workplace Transparency Act (the IWTA) requires valid, bargained-for consideration in exchange for a confidentiality provision separate from consideration supporting a waiver/release of claims. Under the IWTA, an employer may not unilaterally include a statement that confidentiality is the employee’s preference or include confidentiality provisions related to “future or prospective concerted activity related to workplace conditions.” The IWTA also requires safeguards for confidentiality provisions, including written agreements, voluntary preferences, notice of the right to consult counsel, and 21-day review/7-day revocation periods. New York has enacted similar legislation. States, such as Illinois, California, Colorado, Washington, New York, Maine, and Oregon limit the use of confidentiality and non-disparagement provisions to prevent individuals from concealing unlawful employment practices.  Consideration may be given to naming state and local laws to be included in the release/waiver, in addition to the typical anti-discrimination laws, which can be implicated in an employment relationship. These may include biometric information privacy laws, data breach laws, fair debt and credit reporting acts, and leave laws. Several states (e.g., California, Colorado, Illinois) have enacted legislation restricting or regulating choice of law and forum selection provisions to ensure employees are protected by the laws of the state where they work and not required to travel to a forum where they have no connection to litigate a dispute. Washington state has enacted such protections in the context of adjudicating noncompetition covenants and nondisclosure or nondisparagement provisions. 4.  Restrictive Covenants Must Be Carefully Tailored An employer may desire to include more robust provisions, such as non-competition, nondisparagement, and confidentiality provisions (drafted in accordance with applicable state and federal law) based on the individual’s position or access to confidential information. Tip: In addition to state laws enacted to prevent overreaching confidentiality and non-disparagement provisions, the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) also restricts these provisions insofar as they interfere with individuals' ability to engage in protected concerted activity. The NLRA’s protections in this regard apply to both unionized and non-unionized, non-supervisory employees and applicants.      5. Existing Agreements Can Affect the Separation Agreement  Prior agreements between the employee and the company may impact the separation agreement. Prior agreements may include an employment agreement, equity agreement, work-for-hire agreement, non-competition agreement, or arbitration agreement.   Tips: The “complete agreement” (or integration provision) of the separation agreement may need to address prior agreements, and if appropriate, confirm the prior agreements remain in effect. Ensure the agreements have consistent provisions (e.g., arbitration provisions, forum selection clauses, choice of law, etc.). Use the separation agreement to update or amend prior agreements that may contain unenforceable provisions. 6. The Circumstances of Separation Shape the Agreement A separation agreement for a current employee:  should clarify the employee’s last day worked include the requirement that the employee not sign the agreement until after the last day worked  should distinguish between the employee’s final compensation and accrued paid time off (if required to be paid by state law) versus the consideration, along with a statement confirming the employee will be paid the former even if the employee chooses not to sign the separation agreement If a separation agreement is negotiated after the individual engaged in protected activity or asserted a claim, the employer likely wants to address that in the agreement. 7. Severance Practices Should Remain Consistent Employers should refer to existing policies and practices in place regarding the amount of severance pay (or consideration) offered to impacted individuals. In the absence of such policies, employers should ensure that the amount of severance offered is tied to legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons, such as tenure, position, proximity in time of multiple layoffs/terminations, and perhaps even litigation risk. Tip: Payment of varying amounts of benefits, such as severance (e.g., consideration for a waiver agreement), may provide a basis for a discrimination claim when certain protected classes are paid more generously. This is true even when the employer is not legally required to provide severance.  8. Special Rules Apply for Union Employees Offering a separation agreement to a union member requires careful review of, inter alia, the governing collective bargaining agreement and the NLRA. Offering severance to a union member may first require negotiating with the union to avoid a claim of unfair labor practices. Also, the collective bargaining agreement may include agreed-upon selection for layoff, progressive discipline, conduct that constitutes a terminable offense, or formulas for determining severance. Of course, ensuring nondisparagement, confidentiality, and arbitration provisions do not run afoul of the NLRA are also imperative. It is always best practice to have legal counsel review separation agreements to ensure the unique facts and circumstances and applicable law are considered. Wilson Elser’s national Employment and Labor Team is available for further guidance on implementing individual terminations or layoffs of any size. This article is for informational purposes only and should not be used in place of seeking legal guidance, nor does it constitute legal advice or the creation of an attorney-client relationship.    

Wilson Elser trial attorneys from across the firm – from accomplished first chairs to emerging litigators – gathered in the firm’s New York City office on March 12 and 13 for the 2026 Wilson Elser Mock Trial Invitational. In this latest installment of the firm’s mock trial competitions, the Invitational brought together members of the firm’s National Trial Team (NTT), with cochairs Eugene Boulé and Mat Ross at the helm, to serve as judges and mentors. This year’s judges included Robin Gregory, Tim Sheehan, Michael Gallay, Tom Comer, Phil Quaranta, and Paul Karp. In recognition of the program’s value and impact, 62 participants – including the firm’s attorneys, paralegals, and professional staff – took part in the intensive courtroom simulation, which was designed to replicate the pace, pressure, and unpredictability of actual trial proceedings. Participants assumed a range of roles, serving as trial lawyers, witnesses, jurors, and observers.  Conducted live and in person, the Invitational challenged the 24 attorney finalists representing 18 offices from across the firm to think strategically, adapt in real time, and respond effectively to unexpected developments introduced throughout the trial exercises. From witness examinations and evidentiary disputes to shifting trial dynamics, participants were tested on the same skills demanded in high-stakes litigation nationwide. As with all Wilson Elser NTT training initiatives, attorneys benefited from direct feedback and insight from the firm’s seasoned trial lawyers, whose collective experience spans countless jury trials and appearances in state and federal courts. The Competition The Invitational opened with mock trials conducted simultaneously, with teams of plaintiff and defense counsel presenting their cases in a format designed to closely track real courtroom proceedings. Participants delivered opening statements, conducted direct and cross-examinations, presented closing arguments, and received mock jury verdicts following deliberations. After the trial sessions concluded, Boulé, Ross, and the program judges conferred to evaluate the performances and, along with attorney observers, provided participants with detailed feedback in the days that followed. The critiques reflected the realities of trial practice and were direct, thoughtful, and focused on helping attorneys sharpen their courtroom skills and strategic decision-making. Developed entirely in-house, the Mock Trial Invitational is structured specifically to meet the demands of Wilson Elser’s litigation practice and the firm’s longstanding commitment to trial excellence. The program provides attorneys with practical, experience-driven training in a setting that mirrors the challenges of active litigation while fostering mentorship and professional growth. The Invitational remains a central component of the firm’s broader trial training initiatives, which are designed to ensure that Wilson Elser attorneys are prepared to advocate effectively for clients in the courtroom.

Kadeem Wolliaston (Associate-Albany, NY) and Lori Semlies (Partner-White Plains, NY) successfully collaborated in defending a wrongful death action against a nursing home involving claims for negligence, gross negligence, conscious pain and suffering, and alleged failures relating to staffing, resident care, dignity, comfort, and COVID-19 protocols. The estate claimed that the facility failed to properly care for a resident during his admission and that those alleged failures contributed to his death. Following discovery, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the action. The medical records reflected that the resident tested positive for COVID-19, was unvaccinated, and repeatedly declined available treatment, including monoclonal antibodies, antivirals, and transfer to the hospital. The records further showed that the resident wanted comfort care and was making his own treatment decisions. At deposition, the plaintiff confirmed that the resident was alert, oriented, and capable of making his own decisions. She also acknowledged that he had longstanding personal views regarding medical treatment, was unlikely to change his mind, and that no one would have been able to convince him to accept additional COVID-19 treatment. The deposition also revealed that the plaintiff had maintained handwritten notes during the resident’s admission. A further deposition was pursued to address those notes directly. That testimony confirmed that the notes did not document complaints regarding the facility’s care but instead contained general questions for staff regarding food intake, comfort care medication, and the resident’s condition. The notes also confirmed that the resident declined additional treatment and that this was consistent with his wishes. Importantly, the plaintiff ultimately testified that the lawsuit was not based on the facility’s handling of COVID-19. Rather, her concerns related to the resident’s surroundings, including cleanliness, hydration, and therapy delays. That admission, combined with the medical records and prior testimony, confirmed that there was no evidence that the resident’s death was caused by any failure to provide COVID-19 treatment or prevention measures. The plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the action rather than proceed toward summary judgment. The result reinforces an important lesson in litigation: favorable records are only part of the defense. The testimony must be developed in a way that confirms the record, narrows the issues, and prevents generalized allegations from surviving discovery. A well-prepared deposition can be the difference between defending a claim through motion practice and positioning the case for dismissal.

A massive 320-page class action complaint filed on May 4, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois has the attention of the cannabis sector. The insurance professionals who underwrite it should also be paying close attention. The case, Murray et al. v. Cresco Labs Inc. et al., represents the most ambitious legal assault yet on the marketing practices of major cannabis multistate operators (MSOs). The complaint makes explicit comparisons to the litigation playbook against “Big Tobacco” in the 1990s. With claims across 12 states and spanning allegations of Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO), consumer fraud, breach of warranty, negligent misrepresentation and more, this lawsuit signals a new era of litigation risk that could reshape how cannabis companies are underwritten and insured. What the Case is About Murray v. Cresco is a consumer class action brought by more than 40 named plaintiffs on behalf of recreational cannabis purchasers in Arizona, Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Rhode Island, and Virginia. The defendants are three of the nation's largest cannabis MSOs: Cresco Labs Inc., Green Thumb Industries Inc. and Verano Holdings Corp. Each defendant is a vertically-integrated cannabis operator, meaning they cultivate, process, distribute and sell cannabis products under a portfolio of consumer-facing brands. Cresco sells under brands like Sunnyside, High Supply, FloraCal, and Wonder Wellness; Green Thumb uses brands like Rhythm, Dogwalkers, Good Green and Rise; Verano operates under Zen Leaf, Encore Edibles, BITS and Cabbage Club, among others. The case was filed under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) in the Northern District of Illinois, the location of the defendants’ principal places of business. The complaint explicitly carves out claims related to physician-prescribed medical cannabis, focusing solely on adult-use purchases. A companion case targeting Curaleaf Holdings was filed the same day in the District of Connecticut. The Central Narrative Plaintiffs allege that the defendants knew, or should have known, that cannabis products pose serious mental and physical health risks, yet chose to market those same products as safe, therapeutic, and even medicinal. The complaint paints a picture of an industry that borrowed from Big Tobacco's playbook, allegedly sponsoring less-than-rigorous research to generate consumer friendly health claims while burying the mounting scientific evidence of harm. As the complaint puts it, the defendants “deceptively marketed cannabis as medicine capable of alleviating or treating the very mental health disorders” they “knew or should have known were caused or exacerbated by the use of their products.” The Liability Theories The core liability theory is the federal RICO cause of action. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants operated an “enterprise” engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity, including dealing in controlled substances illegal under federal law, mail fraud, wire fraud, and monetary transactions in criminally derived property. The RICO claim is significant because it opens the door to potential treble damages, meaning any actual damages could be tripled, plus attorneys' fees. The U.S. Supreme Court's 2025 decision in Medical Marijuana, Inc. v. Horn confirmed that RICO can apply to economic harms tied to mislabeled cannabis products. The complaint also asserts state-specific consumer protection claims in all 12 states where the representative plaintiffs reside. These include violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, the Michigan Consumer Protection Act, New York's General Business Law Section 349, the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act, and analogous statutes in each remaining jurisdiction. Across all states, plaintiffs argued that defendants made affirmative misrepresentations about health benefits while concealing known risks, inducing consumers to purchase products they otherwise would not have bought, or to overpay for them. The complaint further alleges breach of express and implied warranties under each state’s version of the Uniform Commercial Code. By representing their products as treating depression, anxiety, PTSD, pain and other conditions, defendants allegedly created and violated express warranties that the products would perform as described. Implied warranty claims assert that cannabis products marketed as wellness aids were not “fit for the ordinary purposes for which such goods are used.” Finally, negligent misrepresentation claims target the defendants’ alleged failure to exercise reasonable care in communicating health information to consumers. The Health Science at the Heart of the Case The factual backbone of the complaint runs over a hundred pages of citations to various scientific studies and papers. The plaintiffs reference research alleging connections of cannabis use to psychosis, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, depression, suicidal ideation, and anxiety. The complaint cites a 2025 study finding that states with open recreational dispensaries experienced a 12 percent increase in admissions to state mental health facilities for psychotic disorders. A 2021 Danish study is also referenced for its finding that schizophrenia cases associated with cannabis use disorder increased 300 percent to 400 percent over 20 years as potency doubled. The complaint also cites cardiovascular studies, including a 2025 meta-analysis that reportedly found cannabis use doubled the risk of cardiovascular death and increased stroke risk by 20 percent. Another cited study estimates the odds of heart attack among cannabis users at more than six times higher than non-users. The complaint also highlights prenatal risks, citing a 2025 review linking cannabis use during pregnancy to increased risk of miscarriage, stillbirth, and preterm birth. Cannabis hyperemesis syndrome (CHS) and cannabis use disorder (CUD) are include in the complaint’s litany of health harms. Focus on Industry Awareness The complaint emphasizes that these health risks are not new discoveries. It alleges that the defendants had “actual and constructive knowledge” of these dangers, derived from years of publicly available peer-reviewed studies and governmental advisories, yet “failed to adequately warn their customers.” Instead, plaintiffs contend the defendants went in the opposite direction by marketing cannabis as a remedy for the conditions it allegedly makes worse. The Playbook is Growing The lead attorney in Murray v. Cresco, Patrick Kenneally, is a former Illinois county prosecutor with a track record of taking on cannabis companies. In 2023, he compelled dispensaries in McHenry County, Illinois to post in-store warnings about cannabis-related mental health risks, a first in the country, and to fund a billboard campaign linking cannabis to suicide and schizophrenia. An earlier, similar lawsuit against Verano was dismissed in March 2026, but the new complaint appears broader and more detailed. A spokesperson for Verano told MJBizDaily that the suit “mirrors claims that have been rejected by courts in similar legal actions against multistate operators in the industry earlier this year.” Whether the 320-page complaint overcomes those defenses remains to be seen. Rescheduling Adds Fuel The timing is notable. On April 23, 2026, the Department of Justice issued an order rescheduling state-licensed medical marijuana and FDA-approved cannabis products to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). Greater federal legitimacy may bring greater legal exposure. Rescheduling is likely to expand market access and raise expectations for product safety and accurate labeling, making negligence and consumer protection claims more likely for compliance lapses. Canada Offers a Preview Canada legalized recreational cannabis nationally in 2018, and its litigation experience since then is instructive. The country has seen a wave of product liability class actions, including Downton v. Organigram Holdings, the first certified cannabis product liability class action in Canada, involving pesticide contamination. Proposed actions have also targeted major Canadian producers over inadequate risk disclosures related to CHS. The pattern is consistent with what now appears to be emerging in the United States – consumer litigation follows the market opening up. Why This Matters for Cannabis Insurers For insurance professionals, Murray v. Cresco crystallizes several risks that the industry has long discussed in the abstract. The case represents a concrete, large-scale litigation event with the potential for enormous exposure. The RICO claim alone, with its treble-damage multiplier, could transform a significant jury verdict into a catastrophic one. Class certification across 12 states would dramatically multiply the defendant pool and the aggregate damages. The underwriting on cannabis product liability has, to date, focused on potential contamination, mislabeling, and the occasional exposure or ingestion-based bodily injury claim. Murray v. Cresco, however, introduces a different species of claim, one rooted in marketing conduct rather than product defect in the traditional sense. Currently, the insurance industry is largely insulated from large consumer class actions like Murray v. Cresco. Many cannabis policies contain broad health-hazard exclusions, which could deny coverage for claims involving specified adverse health effects from cannabis products. Class action exclusions are common, as are exclusions for statutory penalties like treble damages under RICO and state consumer protection awards. RICO-based claims are also vulnerable to criminal-acts exclusions or specific carve-outs for racketeering-related conduct. Coverage Disputes on the Horizon Notwithstanding this insulation, insurers should expect that defendants in cases like Murray will tender claims under their commercial general liability (CGL) policies, products completed operations policies, directors and officers (D&O) policies, and any specialty cannabis coverage they hold. The question of whether deceptive marketing and failure-to-warn allegations fall within a products-completed operations hazard, an advertising injury provision, or some other coverage grant will likely be fiercely contested. What Underwriters Should be Asking Going forward, underwriters writing cannabis risks should scrutinize their insureds' marketing practices with the same focus they currently bring to product testing and labeling. Documented testing integrity, warning protocols, supply-chain oversight, and recall history are all important along with marketing discipline. Policies should be reviewed for RICO and state consumer statute exposure. Underwriters should pay attention to emerging scientific studies on the health effect of cannabis use. Insureds that continue to make unsupported health claims, the kind at the center of Murray v. Cresco, present a different risk profile than those that keep their marketing factual and scientifically supported. Conclusion Murray v. Cresco may or may not succeed on the merits. Defendants will raise formidable challenges, including preemption arguments, standing issues, the difficulty of class certification across a dozen state consumer-protection regimes, causation defenses and the still-evolving science around cannabis and health. But the complaint’s sheer scale, its RICO backbone, and its explicit comparisons to Big Tobacco litigation signal that the era of treating cannabis product liability as a hypothetical future risk is over. For insurers and their cannabis policyholders, the takeaway is practical and immediate. Marketing claims are now a front-line litigation target, and the industry needs to treat them accordingly. Risk-mitigation programs should include compliance audits of all consumer-facing health claims, robust product warnings modeled on the warnings that accompany over-the-counter medical products, and honest internal assessments of what the science supports. Meanwhile, insurers should be reviewing policy language to understand their own exposure in the event that lawsuits like this one multiply. This article was published in the May 18, 2026, posting of Insurance Journal.

Tommy Spitaletto (Partner-Dallas, TX), and Siobhán Mueller (Of Counsel-New York, NY) will present the Wilson Elser Forum webinar “Navigating Related Claims in Directors and Officers (D&O) Insurance Policies” on May 21, 2026. This presentation provides a comprehensive overview of related claims and interrelated wrongful acts provisions in Directors and Officers (D&O) policies. The presenters will explain how these provisions operate to aggregate multiple claims, such as multiple lawsuits, into a single claim, often deemed first made at the earliest date among them. The session explores how courts interpret “relatedness,” and how those interpretations can affect how multiple claims are grouped, which policy period applies, and the extent of coverage available to the insured. The presenters also address key variables, including the specific D&O policy language, the underlying facts that potentially relate the matters, and the governing jurisdiction’s interpretive approach. The session also examines recent case law on the litigation of these D&O provisions, the implications for coverage, and offers practical guidance and key takeaways to help insurers and underwriters navigate them.

Thomas Gentile (Partner-Madison, NJ) and Neil Prupis (Partner-Madison, NJ) prevailed on behalf of their client in on a motion to dismiss before the New York Supreme Court, Suffolk County. The case presented the question of whether an individual nondomiciliary's guarantee of an out-of-state corporation’s debt to a New York corporation confers personal jurisdiction in New York over the nondomiciliary guarantor.  Although New York's appellate Departments (as well as federal courts in New York) are divided on this issue, the court granted the motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, citing both favorable case law as well as arguments regarding the insufficiency of the plaintiff's allegations concerning the nondomiciliary guarantor’s contacts with New York.

Bryce Adams (Partner-Portland, OR), Lisa Wilson (Partner-Dallas, TX), and Jane Young (Denver, CO) will present the Wilson Elser Forum webinar “Bad Faith Across the Badlands” on May 19, 2026. This presentation explores extra-contractual claims made in Colorado, Oregon, Texas, and Washington. The presenters focus their discussion on the current trends and potential pitfalls in these jurisdictions, including those that exist before the lawsuit is even filed. Also addressed are the standards for bad faith in these states, the exposure these claims create, and particularly dangerous types of damages unique to these jurisdictions.

Alan Fiedel (Partner-Miami, FL) authored “Recent Florida Appellate Decision Highlights Evolving Issues in Service on Foreign Defendants,” appearing in the May 13, 2026, posting of Law.com. The article examines the evolving rules governing international service of process and explores the Forsun International Group v. DRT Holdings appellate decision, in which Florida’s Third District Court of Appeal upheld a trial court’s authorization of service by email on foreign parties under Section 48.197 of the Florida Statutes. Although the case arose in a post-judgment context, Alan explains that the ruling may have broader implications for cross-border commercial disputes, product liability matters, and judgment enforcement proceedings involving foreign defendants. The author also addresses the challenges associated with traditional international service methods, including Hague Convention procedures and letters rogatory, and highlights the court’s recognition that email service may be appropriate where it is reasonably calculated to provide notice and is not prohibited by international agreement. The article further emphasizes that due process remains the governing principle and that litigants seeking alternative service methods must still demonstrate that the proposed email address is reliable, active, and genuinely connected to the defendant.  Alan concludes that “courts are likely to confront additional requests for alternative service methods that reflect how parties actually communicate in today’s marketplace,” highlighting the growing role of technology-driven solutions in international litigation.

BTI Consulting Group recently named Wilson Elser among the top firms for associate satisfaction in its “BTI Associate Satisfaction A-Listers 2026” report. Based on more than 5,000 associate responses, BTI recognized 189 law firms for fostering strong associate job satisfaction, with Wilson Elser ranking among the top 36 firms consistently recognized for creating a positive and supportive work environment. The report found that associates increasingly value factors beyond compensation, including meaningful training, mentorship, clear career development opportunities, strong job satisfaction, and active partner investment in associate success. BTI also highlighted the importance of targeted support for women associates and firms’ demonstrated commitment to long-term career growth. The recognition underscores Wilson Elser’s continued focus on cultivating a workplace where associates feel supported, engaged, and positioned for professional success in an increasingly demanding legal industry.

Jacqueline Hattar (Partner-White Plains, NY) will co-host the Pace Women's Justice Center (PWJC) "Cocktails for a Cause" fundraiser on May 28, 2026, at the Barley Beach House in Rye, New York. The event supports the PWJC's commitment to increasing access to justice by providing free legal services to victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, and elder abuse. The funds raised will support the PWJC’s critical services for survivors of abuse. Jackie is a long-time PWJC Advisory Board member and a past recipient of the Center's “Making A Difference” award. She also serves on the Board of Visitors at the Elisabeth Haub School of Law at Pace University. The PWJC, housed at the Elisabeth Haub School of Law in White Plains, New York, is a self-funded, nonprofit legal center that falls under Pace University's 501(c)(3) status. The Center conducts or participates in more than 140 training and outreach events annually, providing free legal services to some 3,500 survivors of domestic violence, sexual assault, and elder abuse. Serving Westchester and Putnam Counties, the PWJC's mission is to pursue justice for victims and prevent abuse by offering quality legal services, fostering community partnerships, and promoting education and awareness. 

Q: Can a one-size-fits-all separation agreement expose a company to risk? A: Yes, using a uniform separation agreement may be efficient, but it can create legal exposure if not carefully tailored. Below are key considerations that will help employers ensure their separation agreements are legally compliant.  1. Individuals Aged 40-plus Trigger Additional Requirements If the impacted individual is 40 years or older, the Older Workers Benefit Protection Act of 1990 (“the OWBPA”), which amended the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, applies. The OWBPA requires that a waiver be “knowing and voluntary,” which requires, at a minimum:  Clear, written, plain language Geared to the individual’s level of understanding, accounting for their level of comprehension and education No technical jargon or long, complex sentences No misleading statements or misinformation Explicit reference to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act in connection with rights or claims being waived No waiver of future rights or claims Recommendation to consult with an attorney before executing the agreement At least 21 days to consider (or 45 days if a group layoff) 7-day revocation period after signing the agreement Additional consideration (e.g., something of value) beyond what the individual is already owed Tips: The 7-day revocation period cannot be shortened. The employer should pay consideration until after the revocation period expires. The individual may sign before the 21 or 45-day time period but only if voluntary and without inducement. Final compensation, business expenses the employer owes the individual, or accrued paid time off benefits legally owed to the individual do not count as consideration. 2. Group Layoffs Involving At Least One  Employee Aged 40-plus Require Additional Disclosures For company layoffs through “an exit incentive program” or “other termination layoff program” consisting of two or more employees (where at least one is 40-plus), the OWBPA imposes additional requirements: The review period increases to 45 days. Employers must provide detailed disclosures containing: the decisional unit; eligibility factors and selection criteria; job titles and ages of all individuals in the decisional unit selected for layoff; job titles and ages of all individuals in the decisional unit not selected for layoff. Tips: These disclosure requirements are in addition to the OWBPA requirements for a knowing and voluntary waiver in No. 1. The decisional unit is the class, unit, or group of employees from which the employer chose who was or was not selected for the program. Careful consideration should be given to the OWBPA notice to ensure compliance with the applicable federal law.  3. State and Local Laws Where Employees Work Varies State laws and local ordinances have varying protected classifications in addition to those protected by federal law (e.g., sex, pregnancy, age, race, color, national origin, ancestry, religion, disability, genetic information).  For example, the Illinois Human Rights Act affords protection to individuals based on their marital status, arrest record, unfavorable military discharge, family responsibilities, and reproductive health decisions. In Michigan, individuals are afforded protection based on their marital status, height, and weight. Indeed, many states, such as California, Colorado, New York, and North Dakota offer protection for lawful, off-duty conduct. Other states afford protection for off-duty cannabis use, off-duty tobacco use, and political activity/speech. Employers should ensure the waiver/release addresses all applicable protected classes, which may be accomplished by a general catchall statement such as “all other classes protected under applicable state or local laws.” Certain states have enacted legislation governing separation agreements. The Illinois Workplace Transparency Act (the IWTA) requires valid, bargained-for consideration in exchange for a confidentiality provision separate from consideration supporting a waiver/release of claims. Under the IWTA, an employer may not unilaterally include a statement that confidentiality is the employee’s preference or include confidentiality provisions related to “future or prospective concerted activity related to workplace conditions.” The IWTA also requires safeguards for confidentiality provisions, including written agreements, voluntary preferences, notice of the right to consult counsel, and 21-day review/7-day revocation periods. New York has enacted similar legislation. States, such as Illinois, California, Colorado, Washington, New York, Maine, and Oregon limit the use of confidentiality and non-disparagement provisions to prevent individuals from concealing unlawful employment practices.  Consideration may be given to naming state and local laws to be included in the release/waiver, in addition to the typical anti-discrimination laws, which can be implicated in an employment relationship. These may include biometric information privacy laws, data breach laws, fair debt and credit reporting acts, and leave laws. Several states (e.g., California, Colorado, Illinois) have enacted legislation restricting or regulating choice of law and forum selection provisions to ensure employees are protected by the laws of the state where they work and not required to travel to a forum where they have no connection to litigate a dispute. Washington state has enacted such protections in the context of adjudicating noncompetition covenants and nondisclosure or nondisparagement provisions. 4.  Restrictive Covenants Must Be Carefully Tailored An employer may desire to include more robust provisions, such as non-competition, nondisparagement, and confidentiality provisions (drafted in accordance with applicable state and federal law) based on the individual’s position or access to confidential information. Tip: In addition to state laws enacted to prevent overreaching confidentiality and non-disparagement provisions, the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) also restricts these provisions insofar as they interfere with individuals' ability to engage in protected concerted activity. The NLRA’s protections in this regard apply to both unionized and non-unionized, non-supervisory employees and applicants.      5. Existing Agreements Can Affect the Separation Agreement  Prior agreements between the employee and the company may impact the separation agreement. Prior agreements may include an employment agreement, equity agreement, work-for-hire agreement, non-competition agreement, or arbitration agreement.   Tips: The “complete agreement” (or integration provision) of the separation agreement may need to address prior agreements, and if appropriate, confirm the prior agreements remain in effect. Ensure the agreements have consistent provisions (e.g., arbitration provisions, forum selection clauses, choice of law, etc.). Use the separation agreement to update or amend prior agreements that may contain unenforceable provisions. 6. The Circumstances of Separation Shape the Agreement A separation agreement for a current employee:  should clarify the employee’s last day worked include the requirement that the employee not sign the agreement until after the last day worked  should distinguish between the employee’s final compensation and accrued paid time off (if required to be paid by state law) versus the consideration, along with a statement confirming the employee will be paid the former even if the employee chooses not to sign the separation agreement If a separation agreement is negotiated after the individual engaged in protected activity or asserted a claim, the employer likely wants to address that in the agreement. 7. Severance Practices Should Remain Consistent Employers should refer to existing policies and practices in place regarding the amount of severance pay (or consideration) offered to impacted individuals. In the absence of such policies, employers should ensure that the amount of severance offered is tied to legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons, such as tenure, position, proximity in time of multiple layoffs/terminations, and perhaps even litigation risk. Tip: Payment of varying amounts of benefits, such as severance (e.g., consideration for a waiver agreement), may provide a basis for a discrimination claim when certain protected classes are paid more generously. This is true even when the employer is not legally required to provide severance.  8. Special Rules Apply for Union Employees Offering a separation agreement to a union member requires careful review of, inter alia, the governing collective bargaining agreement and the NLRA. Offering severance to a union member may first require negotiating with the union to avoid a claim of unfair labor practices. Also, the collective bargaining agreement may include agreed-upon selection for layoff, progressive discipline, conduct that constitutes a terminable offense, or formulas for determining severance. Of course, ensuring nondisparagement, confidentiality, and arbitration provisions do not run afoul of the NLRA are also imperative. It is always best practice to have legal counsel review separation agreements to ensure the unique facts and circumstances and applicable law are considered. Wilson Elser’s national Employment and Labor Team is available for further guidance on implementing individual terminations or layoffs of any size. This article is for informational purposes only and should not be used in place of seeking legal guidance, nor does it constitute legal advice or the creation of an attorney-client relationship.    

Wilson Elser trial attorneys from across the firm – from accomplished first chairs to emerging litigators – gathered in the firm’s New York City office on March 12 and 13 for the 2026 Wilson Elser Mock Trial Invitational. In this latest installment of the firm’s mock trial competitions, the Invitational brought together members of the firm’s National Trial Team (NTT), with cochairs Eugene Boulé and Mat Ross at the helm, to serve as judges and mentors. This year’s judges included Robin Gregory, Tim Sheehan, Michael Gallay, Tom Comer, Phil Quaranta, and Paul Karp. In recognition of the program’s value and impact, 62 participants – including the firm’s attorneys, paralegals, and professional staff – took part in the intensive courtroom simulation, which was designed to replicate the pace, pressure, and unpredictability of actual trial proceedings. Participants assumed a range of roles, serving as trial lawyers, witnesses, jurors, and observers.  Conducted live and in person, the Invitational challenged the 24 attorney finalists representing 18 offices from across the firm to think strategically, adapt in real time, and respond effectively to unexpected developments introduced throughout the trial exercises. From witness examinations and evidentiary disputes to shifting trial dynamics, participants were tested on the same skills demanded in high-stakes litigation nationwide. As with all Wilson Elser NTT training initiatives, attorneys benefited from direct feedback and insight from the firm’s seasoned trial lawyers, whose collective experience spans countless jury trials and appearances in state and federal courts. The Competition The Invitational opened with mock trials conducted simultaneously, with teams of plaintiff and defense counsel presenting their cases in a format designed to closely track real courtroom proceedings. Participants delivered opening statements, conducted direct and cross-examinations, presented closing arguments, and received mock jury verdicts following deliberations. After the trial sessions concluded, Boulé, Ross, and the program judges conferred to evaluate the performances and, along with attorney observers, provided participants with detailed feedback in the days that followed. The critiques reflected the realities of trial practice and were direct, thoughtful, and focused on helping attorneys sharpen their courtroom skills and strategic decision-making. Developed entirely in-house, the Mock Trial Invitational is structured specifically to meet the demands of Wilson Elser’s litigation practice and the firm’s longstanding commitment to trial excellence. The program provides attorneys with practical, experience-driven training in a setting that mirrors the challenges of active litigation while fostering mentorship and professional growth. The Invitational remains a central component of the firm’s broader trial training initiatives, which are designed to ensure that Wilson Elser attorneys are prepared to advocate effectively for clients in the courtroom.

Kadeem Wolliaston (Associate-Albany, NY) and Lori Semlies (Partner-White Plains, NY) successfully collaborated in defending a wrongful death action against a nursing home involving claims for negligence, gross negligence, conscious pain and suffering, and alleged failures relating to staffing, resident care, dignity, comfort, and COVID-19 protocols. The estate claimed that the facility failed to properly care for a resident during his admission and that those alleged failures contributed to his death. Following discovery, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the action. The medical records reflected that the resident tested positive for COVID-19, was unvaccinated, and repeatedly declined available treatment, including monoclonal antibodies, antivirals, and transfer to the hospital. The records further showed that the resident wanted comfort care and was making his own treatment decisions. At deposition, the plaintiff confirmed that the resident was alert, oriented, and capable of making his own decisions. She also acknowledged that he had longstanding personal views regarding medical treatment, was unlikely to change his mind, and that no one would have been able to convince him to accept additional COVID-19 treatment. The deposition also revealed that the plaintiff had maintained handwritten notes during the resident’s admission. A further deposition was pursued to address those notes directly. That testimony confirmed that the notes did not document complaints regarding the facility’s care but instead contained general questions for staff regarding food intake, comfort care medication, and the resident’s condition. The notes also confirmed that the resident declined additional treatment and that this was consistent with his wishes. Importantly, the plaintiff ultimately testified that the lawsuit was not based on the facility’s handling of COVID-19. Rather, her concerns related to the resident’s surroundings, including cleanliness, hydration, and therapy delays. That admission, combined with the medical records and prior testimony, confirmed that there was no evidence that the resident’s death was caused by any failure to provide COVID-19 treatment or prevention measures. The plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the action rather than proceed toward summary judgment. The result reinforces an important lesson in litigation: favorable records are only part of the defense. The testimony must be developed in a way that confirms the record, narrows the issues, and prevents generalized allegations from surviving discovery. A well-prepared deposition can be the difference between defending a claim through motion practice and positioning the case for dismissal.

A massive 320-page class action complaint filed on May 4, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois has the attention of the cannabis sector. The insurance professionals who underwrite it should also be paying close attention. The case, Murray et al. v. Cresco Labs Inc. et al., represents the most ambitious legal assault yet on the marketing practices of major cannabis multistate operators (MSOs). The complaint makes explicit comparisons to the litigation playbook against “Big Tobacco” in the 1990s. With claims across 12 states and spanning allegations of Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO), consumer fraud, breach of warranty, negligent misrepresentation and more, this lawsuit signals a new era of litigation risk that could reshape how cannabis companies are underwritten and insured. What the Case is About Murray v. Cresco is a consumer class action brought by more than 40 named plaintiffs on behalf of recreational cannabis purchasers in Arizona, Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Rhode Island, and Virginia. The defendants are three of the nation's largest cannabis MSOs: Cresco Labs Inc., Green Thumb Industries Inc. and Verano Holdings Corp. Each defendant is a vertically-integrated cannabis operator, meaning they cultivate, process, distribute and sell cannabis products under a portfolio of consumer-facing brands. Cresco sells under brands like Sunnyside, High Supply, FloraCal, and Wonder Wellness; Green Thumb uses brands like Rhythm, Dogwalkers, Good Green and Rise; Verano operates under Zen Leaf, Encore Edibles, BITS and Cabbage Club, among others. The case was filed under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) in the Northern District of Illinois, the location of the defendants’ principal places of business. The complaint explicitly carves out claims related to physician-prescribed medical cannabis, focusing solely on adult-use purchases. A companion case targeting Curaleaf Holdings was filed the same day in the District of Connecticut. The Central Narrative Plaintiffs allege that the defendants knew, or should have known, that cannabis products pose serious mental and physical health risks, yet chose to market those same products as safe, therapeutic, and even medicinal. The complaint paints a picture of an industry that borrowed from Big Tobacco's playbook, allegedly sponsoring less-than-rigorous research to generate consumer friendly health claims while burying the mounting scientific evidence of harm. As the complaint puts it, the defendants “deceptively marketed cannabis as medicine capable of alleviating or treating the very mental health disorders” they “knew or should have known were caused or exacerbated by the use of their products.” The Liability Theories The core liability theory is the federal RICO cause of action. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants operated an “enterprise” engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity, including dealing in controlled substances illegal under federal law, mail fraud, wire fraud, and monetary transactions in criminally derived property. The RICO claim is significant because it opens the door to potential treble damages, meaning any actual damages could be tripled, plus attorneys' fees. The U.S. Supreme Court's 2025 decision in Medical Marijuana, Inc. v. Horn confirmed that RICO can apply to economic harms tied to mislabeled cannabis products. The complaint also asserts state-specific consumer protection claims in all 12 states where the representative plaintiffs reside. These include violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, the Michigan Consumer Protection Act, New York's General Business Law Section 349, the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act, and analogous statutes in each remaining jurisdiction. Across all states, plaintiffs argued that defendants made affirmative misrepresentations about health benefits while concealing known risks, inducing consumers to purchase products they otherwise would not have bought, or to overpay for them. The complaint further alleges breach of express and implied warranties under each state’s version of the Uniform Commercial Code. By representing their products as treating depression, anxiety, PTSD, pain and other conditions, defendants allegedly created and violated express warranties that the products would perform as described. Implied warranty claims assert that cannabis products marketed as wellness aids were not “fit for the ordinary purposes for which such goods are used.” Finally, negligent misrepresentation claims target the defendants’ alleged failure to exercise reasonable care in communicating health information to consumers. The Health Science at the Heart of the Case The factual backbone of the complaint runs over a hundred pages of citations to various scientific studies and papers. The plaintiffs reference research alleging connections of cannabis use to psychosis, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, depression, suicidal ideation, and anxiety. The complaint cites a 2025 study finding that states with open recreational dispensaries experienced a 12 percent increase in admissions to state mental health facilities for psychotic disorders. A 2021 Danish study is also referenced for its finding that schizophrenia cases associated with cannabis use disorder increased 300 percent to 400 percent over 20 years as potency doubled. The complaint also cites cardiovascular studies, including a 2025 meta-analysis that reportedly found cannabis use doubled the risk of cardiovascular death and increased stroke risk by 20 percent. Another cited study estimates the odds of heart attack among cannabis users at more than six times higher than non-users. The complaint also highlights prenatal risks, citing a 2025 review linking cannabis use during pregnancy to increased risk of miscarriage, stillbirth, and preterm birth. Cannabis hyperemesis syndrome (CHS) and cannabis use disorder (CUD) are include in the complaint’s litany of health harms. Focus on Industry Awareness The complaint emphasizes that these health risks are not new discoveries. It alleges that the defendants had “actual and constructive knowledge” of these dangers, derived from years of publicly available peer-reviewed studies and governmental advisories, yet “failed to adequately warn their customers.” Instead, plaintiffs contend the defendants went in the opposite direction by marketing cannabis as a remedy for the conditions it allegedly makes worse. The Playbook is Growing The lead attorney in Murray v. Cresco, Patrick Kenneally, is a former Illinois county prosecutor with a track record of taking on cannabis companies. In 2023, he compelled dispensaries in McHenry County, Illinois to post in-store warnings about cannabis-related mental health risks, a first in the country, and to fund a billboard campaign linking cannabis to suicide and schizophrenia. An earlier, similar lawsuit against Verano was dismissed in March 2026, but the new complaint appears broader and more detailed. A spokesperson for Verano told MJBizDaily that the suit “mirrors claims that have been rejected by courts in similar legal actions against multistate operators in the industry earlier this year.” Whether the 320-page complaint overcomes those defenses remains to be seen. Rescheduling Adds Fuel The timing is notable. On April 23, 2026, the Department of Justice issued an order rescheduling state-licensed medical marijuana and FDA-approved cannabis products to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). Greater federal legitimacy may bring greater legal exposure. Rescheduling is likely to expand market access and raise expectations for product safety and accurate labeling, making negligence and consumer protection claims more likely for compliance lapses. Canada Offers a Preview Canada legalized recreational cannabis nationally in 2018, and its litigation experience since then is instructive. The country has seen a wave of product liability class actions, including Downton v. Organigram Holdings, the first certified cannabis product liability class action in Canada, involving pesticide contamination. Proposed actions have also targeted major Canadian producers over inadequate risk disclosures related to CHS. The pattern is consistent with what now appears to be emerging in the United States – consumer litigation follows the market opening up. Why This Matters for Cannabis Insurers For insurance professionals, Murray v. Cresco crystallizes several risks that the industry has long discussed in the abstract. The case represents a concrete, large-scale litigation event with the potential for enormous exposure. The RICO claim alone, with its treble-damage multiplier, could transform a significant jury verdict into a catastrophic one. Class certification across 12 states would dramatically multiply the defendant pool and the aggregate damages. The underwriting on cannabis product liability has, to date, focused on potential contamination, mislabeling, and the occasional exposure or ingestion-based bodily injury claim. Murray v. Cresco, however, introduces a different species of claim, one rooted in marketing conduct rather than product defect in the traditional sense. Currently, the insurance industry is largely insulated from large consumer class actions like Murray v. Cresco. Many cannabis policies contain broad health-hazard exclusions, which could deny coverage for claims involving specified adverse health effects from cannabis products. Class action exclusions are common, as are exclusions for statutory penalties like treble damages under RICO and state consumer protection awards. RICO-based claims are also vulnerable to criminal-acts exclusions or specific carve-outs for racketeering-related conduct. Coverage Disputes on the Horizon Notwithstanding this insulation, insurers should expect that defendants in cases like Murray will tender claims under their commercial general liability (CGL) policies, products completed operations policies, directors and officers (D&O) policies, and any specialty cannabis coverage they hold. The question of whether deceptive marketing and failure-to-warn allegations fall within a products-completed operations hazard, an advertising injury provision, or some other coverage grant will likely be fiercely contested. What Underwriters Should be Asking Going forward, underwriters writing cannabis risks should scrutinize their insureds' marketing practices with the same focus they currently bring to product testing and labeling. Documented testing integrity, warning protocols, supply-chain oversight, and recall history are all important along with marketing discipline. Policies should be reviewed for RICO and state consumer statute exposure. Underwriters should pay attention to emerging scientific studies on the health effect of cannabis use. Insureds that continue to make unsupported health claims, the kind at the center of Murray v. Cresco, present a different risk profile than those that keep their marketing factual and scientifically supported. Conclusion Murray v. Cresco may or may not succeed on the merits. Defendants will raise formidable challenges, including preemption arguments, standing issues, the difficulty of class certification across a dozen state consumer-protection regimes, causation defenses and the still-evolving science around cannabis and health. But the complaint’s sheer scale, its RICO backbone, and its explicit comparisons to Big Tobacco litigation signal that the era of treating cannabis product liability as a hypothetical future risk is over. For insurers and their cannabis policyholders, the takeaway is practical and immediate. Marketing claims are now a front-line litigation target, and the industry needs to treat them accordingly. Risk-mitigation programs should include compliance audits of all consumer-facing health claims, robust product warnings modeled on the warnings that accompany over-the-counter medical products, and honest internal assessments of what the science supports. Meanwhile, insurers should be reviewing policy language to understand their own exposure in the event that lawsuits like this one multiply. This article was published in the May 18, 2026, posting of Insurance Journal.

Tommy Spitaletto (Partner-Dallas, TX), and Siobhán Mueller (Of Counsel-New York, NY) will present the Wilson Elser Forum webinar “Navigating Related Claims in Directors and Officers (D&O) Insurance Policies” on May 21, 2026. This presentation provides a comprehensive overview of related claims and interrelated wrongful acts provisions in Directors and Officers (D&O) policies. The presenters will explain how these provisions operate to aggregate multiple claims, such as multiple lawsuits, into a single claim, often deemed first made at the earliest date among them. The session explores how courts interpret “relatedness,” and how those interpretations can affect how multiple claims are grouped, which policy period applies, and the extent of coverage available to the insured. The presenters also address key variables, including the specific D&O policy language, the underlying facts that potentially relate the matters, and the governing jurisdiction’s interpretive approach. The session also examines recent case law on the litigation of these D&O provisions, the implications for coverage, and offers practical guidance and key takeaways to help insurers and underwriters navigate them.