Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Since the 1960s, consumer advocates have used the tool of the class action to shepherd and win redress for those who have relatively small claims, but don't have the practical means to pursue their own individual lawsuits. The honorable intention is to notify and help vulnerable or unsophisticated plaintiffs who may not even realize they have been swindled. Class actions have won significant refunds for HMO customers, credit card and utility customers, and, of course, aided victims negligently exposed to toxic substances.
Success breeds imitation, however, and the number of pending class action lawsuits in U.S. state courts has increased by tenfold in just the last decade. These suits are still hugely popular, notwithstanding the negative publicity surrounding “coupon settlements,” collusive settlements, and the truly bizarre $10-million Alabama Bank of Boston case, wherein the mortgage escrow account holder plaintiffs won the suit, but had each of their accounts debited for $91.
Most Connecticut residents, myself included, recently became eligible for free Blockbuster video rentals due to having been unknowingly fleeced at our local video store. There is no way that the harm I suffered in paying excessive $3 fines at Blockbuster equates with the true harm suffered by a victim of negligent product liability. Yet the pointless Blockbuster case, which was said to have a face value of $460 million, clogged the Texas court docket and was pursued in 13 other state courts, perhaps lengthening the queue for justice for some truly injured victims.
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.
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.
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?