Want to get this daily news briefing by email? Here's the sign-up.

WHAT WE'RE WATCHING

REMOTE BANKING - What passes for "flexibility" in Big Law these days seems to be increasingly… flexible. Law.com's Andrew Maloney reports that law firms pushing increased office attendance this fall are offering attorneys the opportunity to "bank" remote days. Davis Polk and Weil recently announced four-day, in-office mandates starting in September. But Weil said associates and counsel will be allowed 12 "flexible remote days" annually and Davis Polk rolled out a remote day "bank" of 16 days. Skadden, which announced a four-day office week in May, also stated it will allow remote work "during specified periods throughout the year." Michelle Fivel, a partner and co-founder of the legal recruiting firm Hatch Henderson Fivel, said these policies could "lessen the blow" of stricter attendance policies, but relayed that many lawyers, particularly younger ones, remain frustrated by what feels like a relentless march back to the office because associates are already available 24/7, whether it's in the office or working remotely.

GOING FLAT - Last week's news on aspartame might have sounded bad for Coca-Cola and other consumer-product companies that widely use the artificial sweetener. But attorneys in the food and beverage industry and academia told Law.com's Chris O'Malley that the mixed messages released Friday about aspartame could take the fizz out of potential litigation some class action lawyers had been gearing up for. While the World Health Organization's cancer agency deemed aspartame a "possible" cause of cancer, another arm of the WHO, the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives, found "no convincing evidence" of health harms from aspartame. Moreover, the FDA last week, in anticipation of the WHO announcement, said FDA scientists do not have safety concerns if aspartame is consumed within recommended daily limits, noted Alexander Smith, a partner at Jenner & Block who represents consumer-product manufacturers. "Manufacturers could say the FDA has weighed in on this issue," Smith said.

ON THE RADAR - Samsung Display Co. Ltd., OLED display manufacturer eMagin Corp. and its top executives and board members were slapped with a stockholder class action Friday in Delaware Court of Chancery in connection with Samsung's proposed acquisition of eMagin for approximately $218 million. The court action, filed by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld and the Kehoe Law Firm, contends that eMagin board members breached their fiduciary duties by agreeing to the 'unfair' terms of the merger agreement. According to the suit, the agreement contains a $9 million 'naked no vote' termination fee which requires eMagin to pay Samsung $9 million on the occasion that the merger does not go through; thus disenfranchising stockholders. The case is 2023-0716-, Judson D. Heckerman v. Jill J. Wittlels, et al. Stay up on the latest state and federal litigation, as well as the latest corporate deals, with Law.com Radar.   

EDITOR'S PICKS

'Coming After Crypto Platforms of All Kinds': Do Celsius Charges Point to Rising Temperature for Enforcement? By Jane Wester

USC Gould Appoints First Black Law Dean By Christine Charnosky

Big Law Engaged in Legal Pickle Over Allegedly Stolen Recipe for Sale at Whole Foods By Marianna Wharry