Michigan Grapples With Airport Authority Over Application of Federal Officer Removal Statute in PFAS Litigation

For the last several months, the Gerald R. Ford International Airport Authority (Airport) in Grand Rapids, Michigan, has been locked in an appellate battle with Michigan’s Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy and State Attorney General Dana Nessel (collectively, Michigan) over whether the Airport may remove Michigan’s lawsuit over the Airport’s use of PFAS[1]-containing firefighting foam based on the federal officer removal doctrine.

FDA

In April, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) released the results of its 2023 sampling assignment, testing for asbestos in talc-containing products. The results confirmed the absence of asbestos in all 50 samples tested, marking the third consecutive year of asbestos-free talc products in the United States. While this news is reassuring for industry participants, the legal landscape remains complex due to ongoing litigation. This article explores the legal implications, potential risks, and regulatory changes related to asbestos detection in cosmetic talc products.

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) “walkaround” rule went into effect on May 31, 2024. The rule is controversial, to say the least, and even before its effective date, it was targeted by industry and trade groups, with perhaps the most high-profile of these efforts being a federal lawsuit in Texas filed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, and Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc., among other plaintiffs.

This article is one of a series of posts diving into each aspect of The Modernization of Cosmetics Regulation Act of 2022 (MoCRA) as the industry awaits MoCRA’s full implementation. This installment focuses on MoCRA’s approach to the regulation of perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in cosmetic products.
Philadelphia County has long been a preferred forum for plaintiffs’ bar in Pennsylvania. Until last week, a motion to dismiss for improper venue under Pa. R. Civ. P. 1028(a)(1) was a tool at the disposal of any corporate defendant improperly entangled into Philadelphia County litigation. However, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision in Hangey v. Husqvarna, 14 EAP 2022 (Pa. Nov. 22, 2023, Dougherty, J.) may have effectively foreclosed improper venue dismissal except for those defendants who conduct no business in Philadelphia County whatsoever.

I was privileged to serve once again as a contributing editor on our firm’s Legal Insights for Manufacturing report, published yesterday. This was our second-annual report, and it contains some great information and perspectives on the challenges that manufacturers will need to tackle throughout the coming year, including product liability, safety, and marketing, as well…

FDA3
As discussed in the Product Perspective, the Modernization of Cosmetics Regulation Act of 2022 (MoCRA) represents a major shift in cosmetic industry regulations. This article, in a continuing series of posts diving into each aspect of MoCRA, covers the talc testing and sample preparation requirements which will be established by the FDA under MoCRA.
FDA3
As we previously discussed, MoCRA requires cosmetic product manufacturer and processors to register their facilities with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). On August 7, 2023, FDA announced that it had published a draft guidance on cosmetic product facility registration and product listings, as required under the Modernization of Cosmetics Regulation Act of 2022 (MoCRA). The draft guidance intends to help the industry by providing relevant requirements and definitions, explaining who is responsible for making submissions, what details to include, and how and when to make the submissions. It also provides information on exemptions, such as those for certain small businesses.
FDA3
As discussed in the Product Perspective, the Modernization of Cosmetics Regulation Act of 2022 (MoCRA) represents a major shift in cosmetic industry regulations. This article, in our continuing series of posts diving into each aspect of MoCRA, covers the process for substantiating safety of cosmetic products.

On August 15, 2023, the Missouri Supreme Court in State ex rel. Monsanto Co. v. Mullen, No. SC99942 (Mo. Aug. 15, 2023) (en banc), clarified competing interpretations of Mo. Rev. Stat. 508.010.5(1) (2016) with regard to the proper venue for defendant corporations sued by plaintiffs alleging first injury outside the state of Missouri. In the opinion, the Missouri Supreme Court held that venue is determined based on the location of the defendant corporation’s registered agent at the time the suit is filed, rather than the registered agent’s location on the date of a plaintiff’s first alleged injury, resolving an ambiguity contained in the statute.