Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Bankruptcy has emerged as a dominant avenue for resolving mass product liability cases and, in particular, asbestos liability cases. Plaintiffs already have filed hundreds of thousands of asbestos claims, with many experts surmising that the peak of asbestos litigation is not yet in sight. Asbestos encompasses a family of naturally occurring fibrous materials that have superior insulation and tensile strength properties. Manufacturers began to exploit the flame-retardant and insulating properties of asbestos in heavy industrial use in the 1940s and incorporated asbestos into as many as 3000 products by the early 1970s, when industrial usage peaked. From automotive applications, such as gaskets and brakes, to home uses, such as roof shingles and attic insulation, the use of asbestos for commercial applications proliferated throughout most of the 20th century and still continues today at a decreased rate. The United States still consumes approximately 16,000 metric tons of asbestos each year.
Although asbestos is abundant, cheap and useful, it is also extremely hazardous. The United States Department of Health and Human Services classifies all types of asbestos as carcinogenic when in their airborne or “friable” state. Inhalation of asbestos fibers can cause mesothelioma, lung cancer, asbestosis and pleural thickening of the lungs. Between 1940 and 1979, more than 27 million workers in the United States were exposed to significant amounts of asbestos dust in the workplace, and countless others encountered asbestos in their everyday lives. Because of the long latency period of asbestos-related disease, cancer claims arising from the peak usage years of the 1970s have yet to be brought. It is estimated that more than 85% of U.S. industries face, or will face, asbestos claims.
For many victims, the bankruptcy court is the forum in which their claims are resolved. The Supreme Court has disapproved proposed mandatory class action settlement of asbestos claims, and Congress has been unable to muster a consensus for proposed legislation creating a mandatory administrative compensation scheme. As a result, bankruptcy has emerged as the only ready means for companies to limit their asbestos liabilities. Approximately 80 companies now have filed for bankruptcy at least partly due to asbestos claims.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
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.
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?