Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Fulbright & Jaworski Takes Pulse of 300 Corporate Counsel for Survey of U.S. Litigation Trends
What are the biggest litigation concerns right now in corporate America? What industries face the highest incidence of legal action? How do corporate law departments regard their litigation firms? And by what criteria do general counsel select the firms that litigate on their behalf, and what areas of legal service do they feel need the greatest improvement?
These were just a few of the questions kicking around last year among members of an emerging issues group within the litigation practice at Fulbright & Jaworski. Fulbright litigators wanted more than intuition and anecdote to tell them where the business was developing, and how it might be changing. Despite a healthy practice and no shortage of work in the U.S. and internationally, the emerging issues group thought there might be a way to apply some hard numbers to the American litigation marketplace, and to answer the age-old question, how can the firm enhance its service to its own corporate clients.
Indeed, there was. With considerable investment and resources put to work, Fulbright recently issued a broad Survey of U.S. Litigation Trends, drawing on input from 300 corporate counsel. Companies from 41 states in eight major industries were represented; responding companies reported average gross annual revenues of $600 million (30% averaged revenues of $1 billion or more). Respondents were the genuine article – 83% identified themselves as general counsel or chief legal officer, with the remainder comprised of senior staff attorneys. It could be the largest study ever conducted of corporate litigation issues. Fulbright hopes the survey will establish important benchmarks for assessing the litigation needs among large companies in the U.S.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
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
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?