Mr. James O'Reilly

Volunteer Professor of Law, University of Cincinnati - CC

GLG News by Mr. James O'Reilly, Volunteer Professor of Law

Analyses are solely the work of the authors and have not been edited or endorsed by GLG.

GLG News is now G+ Insights

G+ is a community for professionals, academics and entrepreneurs to connect through online discussions and in-person meetings. You will continue to see G+ Insights (formerly GLG News) here as well as on the G+ website, where you can share and discuss the G+ Insights you read.

Getting a New Food Additive to Market

September 15, 2010

1. Food ingredient companies face substantial exposure for new direct additive materials because of a weakness in FDA's food materials review process.2. After marketing, if the food material is challenged, FDA will walk away and say that the food supplier was told "you're on your own".3. Ultimately food industry efforts will have to be devoted to getting a permanent and workable solution in place.

No Company is Bullet-Proof Against Federal Contractor Risks

June 10, 2008

Analysis of:U.S. sues Honeywell over bullet-proof vests | www.latimes.com

Product liability exposure of new materials makers can be severe, especially with fatal consequences of failures Internal memos re product problems can shoot company in the foot; prudent firms have a plan for controlling open-ended speculative memos in an instant-message environment Major PR and govt. contract risk of "getting it wrong" with new materials under expected stressful conditions makes this a good warning to upstream materials suppliers.

Controversy Bred By Under-Regulation: Are Genes Too Casual?

February 4, 2008

Analysis of:Growth of Genetic Tests Concerns Federal Panel | www.nytimes.com

Recent reports by a federal study panel, addressed in stories in the NY Times and other sources, highlight one more gap between expectations and reality in the resource-starved federal safety net for consumers. Much less is being done to oversee Gene Test kits than consumers may expect; eventually there will be a public outcry when some real harm is documented. This Administration has prided itself on responsiveness to industry's preferences, yet choices to not regulate leave open the federal agencies as well as the industry to a backlash when future harms occur.

Paint Industry Needs Global Lead Settlement Quickly

May 9, 2007

Analysis of:Lead paint industry on the defensive | www.lawyersweeklyusa.com

"Son of Asbestos" claims may sound extreme; but the lead paint makers would be prudent to collectively negotiate and fund a 50-state settlement that follow the tobacco companies' model and avoids the bankruptcy model of the asbestos-using firms. Lead injury awareness has increased and demands for public protection will escalate. Paint and related product industries knew of risks long before the warnings and bans, so their parallels to asbestos defendants are likely to bring juries to similar sized awards. Lobbyists can buy time but not buy peaceful continued business operations. As author of studies on building safety, toxic torts and on product warnings liabilities, I see only a matter of a few years before asbestos-like liabilities will inevitably crush those who don't choose a global settlement of the lead legacy.

Page : 11 to 4 of 4

Subscribe to Updates

By RSS