Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Keep from Drowning in the Sea of Mass Torts!
“Enriched and emboldened after successful fights against asbestos and tobacco companies, some of the nation's top plaintiffs' lawyers have trained their sights on drug makers, claiming that many giant pharmaceutical companies have hidden the dangers of medicines the lawyers say have harmed thousands of people.” Thus began an article on the front page of the May 18, 2003 the Sunday New York Times, entitled, “Trial Lawyers Are Now Focusing on Lawsuits Against Drug Makers,” which reported on a significant increase in the number of lawsuits against pharmaceutical companies over the last several years. (See Alex Berenson, “Trial Lawyers Are Now Focusing on Lawsuits Against Drug Makers,” N.Y. Times, May 18, 2003, at 1.) In fact, during the last 3 years alone, ten of the 19 products liability litigations transferred to the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation have involved pharmaceuticals or medical devices. (See Web site of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation at www.jpml.uscourts.gov.)
In order to avoid drowning in the sea of mass tort litigation, drug and medical device companies must aggressively and “offensively” defend these actions — and do so as soon as the mass tort litigation emerges. Critical to stemming the mass tort tide is an understanding of the factors that drive the filing of these actions against pharmaceutical and medical device companies: 1) the ease with which controversial issues relating to drugs and medical devices can be recognized; and 2) complicated causation issues. Armed with that understanding, the single most important pre-trial goal for any defendant must be the early exposure of frivolous claims based on tenuous causation and junk science. Of course, the immediate benefit of this strategy is obvious: the dismissal of the individual case at hand. The benefits of early exposure, however, are much more far-reaching in that it can act as a deterrent to the filing of new cases, as well as a catalyst for the dismissal of existing actions based on similar unsupported theories. Early exposure of frivolous claims is the key to stopping the growth of a particular mass tort litigation, as well as to causing its ultimate demise.
It's All Right on the Label
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?