Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Developments of Note
Arkansas Supreme Court Invites Comment On Future Of Print Reporting
The Arkansas Supreme Court, citing increased reliance on the electronic versions of its official law reports, has requested comment on the future of the printed version of the reports. In re: Publication of the Arkansas Reports, 2003 Ark. LEXIS 208 (Ark. Sup. Ct. Apr. 17, 2003). The court noted that, 'Internet use has had a major impact on the research methods of attorneys and the practice of law in Arkansas.' The court also cited budget constraints as a factor in evaluating the continued publication of the print volumes.
New York Attorney General Announces Arrest Of “Buffalo Spammer”
On May 14, New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer announced the arrest of Howard Carmack, an e-mail marketer known as the “Buffalo Spammer”, on misdemeanor and felony charges arising from his alleged scheme to send hundreds of millions of forged e-mails from accounts opened using stolen identities. As New York has not enacted specific anti-spam legislation, the attorney general charged Carmack under New York's recently enacted identity theft statute. The Buffalo Spammer prosecution is the attorney general's first under the identity theft statute, but it is not the office's first action against a spammer. In January, a Manhattan Supreme Court Justice issued a permanent injunction against MonsterHut Inc. based on the attorney general's suit charging fraudulent, deceptive and illegal practices under New York's consumer protection laws.
New California Data Security Law To Take Effect
The statute, effective July 1, requires companies to report security breaches that may compromise personal information. Senate Bill 1386, signed into law last year, amends the California Civil Code to require any business operating in California that stores confidential information about state residents to notify those individuals if a breach of the computer system is discovered that puts the security of the information at risk. While it is unclear how California will enforce the law and what steps businesses should take to comply, the law appears to shield companies from liability if they encrypt the personal information they maintain. The law defines “personal information” as an individual's name, combined with an additional data element such as a Social Security number or an account number or password.
Developments of Note was written by Julian S. Millstein, Edward A. Pisacreta and Jeffrey D. Neuburger, partners in the New York office of Brown Raysman Millstein Felder & Steiner LLP.
Developments of Note was written by Julian S. Millstein, Edward A. Pisacreta and Jeffrey D. Neuburger, partners in the New York office of Brown Raysman Millstein Felder & Steiner LLP.
Arkansas Supreme Court Invites Comment On Future Of Print Reporting
The Arkansas Supreme Court, citing increased reliance on the electronic versions of its official law reports, has requested comment on the future of the printed version of the reports. In re: Publication of the Arkansas Reports, 2003 Ark. LEXIS 208 (Ark. Sup. Ct. Apr. 17, 2003). The court noted that, 'Internet use has had a major impact on the research methods of attorneys and the practice of law in Arkansas.' The court also cited budget constraints as a factor in evaluating the continued publication of the print volumes.
On May 14,
New California Data Security Law To Take Effect
The statute, effective July 1, requires companies to report security breaches that may compromise personal information. Senate Bill 1386, signed into law last year, amends the California Civil Code to require any business operating in California that stores confidential information about state residents to notify those individuals if a breach of the computer system is discovered that puts the security of the information at risk. While it is unclear how California will enforce the law and what steps businesses should take to comply, the law appears to shield companies from liability if they encrypt the personal information they maintain. The law defines “personal information” as an individual's name, combined with an additional data element such as a Social Security number or an account number or password.
Developments of Note was written by Julian S. Millstein, Edward A. Pisacreta and Jeffrey D. Neuburger, partners in the
Developments of Note was written by Julian S. Millstein, Edward A. Pisacreta and Jeffrey D. Neuburger, partners in the
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?