Home

On October 9, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reversed the District of Maine’s decision denying dismissal of a defamation suit against our client Monterey Bay Aquarium Foundation and remanded with instructions to dismiss the complaint.

The case was brought by several Maine lobster companies and industry associations that sued the Monterey Bay Aquarium Foundation under Maine law over its Seafood Watch program’s decision to downgrade American lobster from a “yellow” to a “red” rating.  On interlocutory appeal, the First Circuit held that the group defamation rule bars the plaintiffs’ claims because a statement that applies equally to every member of an industry of more than 5,600 lobstermen does not single out any one of them.

On September 24, 2026, the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed Williams & Connolly’s trial win for client Vimian Group AB and three of its affiliated entities. The court also granted Vimian’s cross-appeal on two issues, holding that Vimian should have been awarded additional damages below.

Williams & Connolly serves as lead plaintiff counsel in this Delaware contractual indemnification case that arose out of an M&A transaction. After a one-week bench trial in February 2025 and two-day closing argument in May 2025, Judge Meghan A. Adams found in favor of the firm’s clients, awarding $40.2 million in damages against the two defendants who went to trial and a total judgment of more than $48 million. The court also fully rejected the defendants’ counterclaims, through which they sought to escape any liability and had sought $13.5 million in their own damages. In total, including prior settlements with three co-defendants, Williams & Connolly has obtained more than $70 million in compensation for Vimian.

On appeal, the Delaware Supreme Court rejected the defendants’ contractual and public policy arguments seeking to undo or limit the indemnification. Turning to Vimian’s cross-appeal, the Delaware Supreme Court held that the trial court mistakenly limited Vimian’s damages in two ways. The Delaware Supreme Court ordered the trial court to award those damages on remand.

On August 10, 2026, a court in the Northern District of Texas granted the Consumer Data Industry Association’s (“CDIA”) motion for summary judgment in substantial part, declaring Texas Business & Commerce Code § 20.05(a)(5) (which precluded reporting of certain types of medical debt) expressly preempted by the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) § 1681t(b)(1)(E) and permanently enjoining the Texas Attorney General from enforcing the statute.  The Court accepted CDIA’s core position that § 20.05(a)(5) impermissibly imposes a state-law prohibition on a subject matter regulated by FCRA.  The Court held that “the best interpretation of § 1681c and § 1681t(b) is that Congress intended to preempt States from passing legislation more protective of consumers in relation to adverse information on their consumer reports—which includes the reporting of medical debt.”  This is a tremendous win for CDIA, as the decision clarifies the broad scope of preemption under § 1681t(b)(1)(E) with respect to state laws that seek to regulate what types of consumer information can be reported on consumer reports, and it represents a break from the First Circuit’s contrary decision (in CDIA v. Frey) in which the First Circuit adopted a narrow interpretation of § 1681t(b)(1)(E) and found no preemption of medical debt reporting.

On August 5, 2026, the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Missouri granted our client’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction, removing it entirely from a lawsuit brought by an investment firm.

In early 2026, plaintiffs filed suit against our client (a law firm) and others in St. Louis County.  Our client moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.  After full briefing and oral argument by Joe Terry, the Court granted the motion and dismissed all claims against our client.