Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Electronic Waste Recycling Laws Challenge the Leasing Industry
An increasing number of state legislatures are deciding that there is a need to recycle computer components and other electronic waste, also known as “e-waste,” and thus are proposing diverse laws intended to encourage or require such recycling. Equally diverse, to the point of creating conflicts and confusion, are the ways in which the various state legislatures propose to raise the funds to pay for such programs. Two states, California and Maine, have enacted such legislation and, at press time, 14 states have proposed such legislation. On Jan. 1, 2005, California's law was the first to go into effect. This article describes the Equipment Leasing Association's policy on legislation requiring advanced recycling fees. The article reviews California's new e-waste law and highlights some of the concerns to the leasing industry with regard to California's law.
Possible Solution to Disposal of Electronic Equipment Containing Lead and Mercury; Definite Headache for Leasing Industry
California has attempted to address the issue of disposal of consumer electronics containing significant amounts of hazardous substances with the passage of the Electronic Waste Recycling Act (“the Act”). The most significant requirement of the Act for equipment leasing companies is the establishment of a system for paying for the collection and recycling of electronic wastes. In addition, the Act also has a number of other components including: 1) a prohibition on the sale of electronic devices that do not conform to European Union standards due to heavy metal content (not effective before 2007); 2) a prohibition on the sale of electronic devices that do not conform to the Act's labeling requirements; 3) distribution of recovery and recycling payments to qualified entities covering the cost of electronic waste collection and recycling; 4) a directive to establish environmentally preferred purchasing criteria for state agency purchases of certain electronic equipment; 5) the requirement that manufacturers make available to consumers instructions on how and where to recycle their products; and 6) provision for civil liability for violation of certain provisions of the Act.
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?