Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Fen-Phen Again
Nearly 83,000 Fen-Phen users, including those whose claims have already been approved, may have their payments delayed or denied due to a new scheme instituted by the trustees of the Wyeth Settlement Trust, according to a lawsuit filed Nov. 5 by New York City-based law firm Napoli, Kaiser, Bern & Associates. The suit was filed on behalf of several individuals who are awaiting payment of damages from the trust, formerly known as The American Home Products Settlement Trust.
After a prolonged court case, a settlement was reached in 2002 that entitled Fen-Phen users to compensation for heart damage related to the drug's use. The Wyeth Settlement Trust was established to accept and process claims, and award benefits under an established formula.
The new suit, filed on behalf of some of Napoli, Kaiser, Bern's approximately 1000 clients, alleges that the trustees have frozen more than 90% of the remaining 83,000 claims, refusing to process them any further, in direct contradiction to the settlement, which called for a “first-in, first-out” processing order. According to the complaint, the trustees have adopted an arbitrary prioritization scheme, which means that the vast majority of legitimate claims may never be paid, even those claims that had previously been approved for payment. “Our clients, who have long-standing, significant injuries from the use of this medication, have met all medical and legal criteria for payment and their claims have been approved,” said Marc Bern, a senior partner at Napoli, Kaiser, Bern. “However, they have been told that their claims will not be processed and/or paid, due to a new 'claims integrity program' and a 'prioritization scheme' that, in effect, allows the trustees to pick and choose who will receive benefits.”
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?