Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The USA Patriot Act was signed into law by President Bush on October 26, 2001 (the 'Enactment Date'). Its stated purpose is to enable law enforcement officials to track down and punish those responsible for the 9/11 terrorist attacks and to protect against any similar attacks.
The act is officially titled: The Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA Patriot Act) Act of 2001.
This is the first in a series of articles intended to address the impact on non-bank affiliated leasing companies of those provisions of the USA Patriot Act that relate to anti-money laundering and customer identification programs. In general, these provisions will impose compliance requirements on many companies involved in the leasing industry which ' to date ' have not been regulated on these issues. The next article in this series will be published following the issuance by the Treasury Department of regulations relevant to the 'loan and finance company' category of 'financial institution'; these regulations are expected in the next few months.
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.
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.
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.
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?