Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The Dangers Of Electronic Discovery
As has been widely publicized, on May 16 a Florida state court jury awarded $604.3 million in compensatory damages and later an additional $850 million in punitive damages to Coleman Holdings Inc., the camping-gear maker formerly owned by billionaire investor Ronald Perelman, in Coleman's fraud suit against powerhouse investment banker Morgan Stanley & Co. The verdict was notable not only because of its size, but also because of how it came about.
Shortly before the trial, after nearly 2 years of litigation, Judge Elizabeth Maass issued a partial default judgment against Morgan Stanley for what she characterized as a repeated failure to produce e-mails requested by Perelman during discovery. Judge Maass indicated that she would affirmatively instruct the jury to assume that Morgan Stanley had participated in a fraud. At the beginning of the trial, Judge Maass did exactly that; telling the jury that it was to assume that “Morgan Stanley participated in a scheme to mislead (Coleman) and others and to cover up massive fraud.” Though Perelman still needed to prove that he relied on Morgan Stanley, the judge's extraordinary instruction rendered an adverse verdict against Morgan Stanley a fait accompli.
The Morgan Stanley case is the most recent example of the perils that corporate defendants face in the era of e-discovery. Electronic evidence, and especially e-mail, now plays a starring role in litigation and investigations involving large corporations, particularly in areas such as employment discrimination, fraud and corporate mismanagement. Judges are increasingly familiar with electronic discovery, and are increasingly willing to impose heavy sanctions on corporations that do not comply with electronic discovery requests. As the Morgan Stanley case shows, the consequences of these sanctions can be dire. It is important, therefore, that companies take heed of the lessons of the Morgan Stanley case, and ensure that they have in place a comprehensive and effective system to recover and produce electronically stored documents.
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?