Since the U.S. Supreme Court's 2007 and 2009 rulings in Twombly and Iqbal, federal and state courts have been wrestling with how to apply tightened pleading standards to all sorts of complaints. Twombly overturned the Conley "any set of facts" standard for motions to dismiss, and Iqbal made it clear that the new plausibility standard applies to all civil cases. Is the 'TwIqbal' doctrine a revolution or evolution? Was Conley at odds with the reality of modern litigation (particulary discovery) and were courts already eroding it? Are there some substantive areas where the doctrine will have more force? Not surprisingly, plaintiffs have resisted application of 'TwIqbal'. But have some courts also resisted? Are there areas (e.g. master complaints, employment discrimination claims) where courts have diluted 'TwIqbal'?

Join BNA's expert panel as they discuss the answers to these questions and more:

• Have courts been granting more motions to dismiss in the wake of these cases?
• Have plaintiffs' attorneys risen to the challenge of meeting the plausibility standard laid out in Iqbal?
• What types of claims have been most affected since the rulings came down?
• Will Congress respond to these decisions?
• Will this be the Supreme Court's last word on pleading for a while?
• What happens next?

Dechert clients and colleagues receive a 50% discount off of the registration rate. Please use discount code LGAULIST; this rate is for listen-only participants and CLE will not be provided.