Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Sam Miller was a poor employee. He regularly came to work late and left early. He frequently took egregiously long lunch breaks. He avoided taking on work, whenever possible, and the quality of the work he submitted left something to be desired. Countless instances of tardiness, laziness, and poor performance had been painstakingly documented by Sam's supervisors over time, and he had been informed of these chronic performance issues in his last four formal evaluations. The decision to terminate Sam's employment has been made. Sounds like this employer has done everything by the book, right? So why does his employer now face costly litigation and large potential financial exposure? In a word, e-mail.
Workplace E-mail
E-mail has become a way of life. Its advantages in the business world are widely known: It is an inexpensive, easily distributed medium, which can be accessed, even wirelessly, almost instantaneously anywhere in the world. In this fast-paced global economy, these features are highly desired. E-mail in the workplace is a double-edged sword, however, and the problems associated with workplace e-mail, particularly in connection with litigation-related discovery, have been recognized with increasing frequency by courts and litigants around the country.
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.
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?