Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
On Sept. 3, New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer announced a $40 million settlement with Canary Capital Partners LLC (a multimillion-dollar hedge fund), Canary Investment Management LLC, Canary Capital Partners Ltd. and the managing principal, Edward Stern, for fraudulent trading of mutual fund shares. Because of suggestions that such schemes are widespread, the news has triggered a flurry of media attention and, more notably, significant regulatory inquiries, criminal probes and private class actions.
The media and regulatory buzz is not unlike attention to Spitzer's investigation of Wall Street research. That 2001 investigation led to sweeping industry-wide reform, with 10 Wall Street securities firms agreeing to pay $1.4 billion in fines in April 2002. The recent investigations and lawsuits mark the beginning of yet another chapter in the ongoing scrutiny of investment practices.
The 'Canary' Complaint and Settlement
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 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.
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.
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?
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.