Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The Growth of Litigation: A Global Trend
For the past three years, our law firm, Fulbright & Jaworski LLP, has conducted its Litigation Trends Survey, based on responses from senior-level in-house lawyers at companies in a variety of industries and at various revenue levels. In the first year, we surveyed only United States companies. Last year, we expanded our survey to encompass companies in the United Kingdom as well. This year's edition of the Litigation Trends Survey ' in recognition of the increasing globalization of the world economy and our own firm's rapid international expansion ' drew on responses from companies around the world. The survey results generally confirmed what prompted us to expand the scope of the Survey to begin with ' that companies are increasingly operating more globally and therefore face greater and more frequent challenges in protecting their interests in areas far from home.
The Survey
Our survey results this year showed that companies face increasing numbers of business disputes in jurisdictions on an international scale. Although U.S. companies report far fewer instances than their international counterparts of litigation arising out of events occurring abroad, more than a third of U.S. companies in the Survey have up to 20% of the matters on their litigation dockets pending in venues outside the United States. Over half of U.S. companies with revenues over a billion dollars reached that 20% threshold. U.S. respondents have told us that they face the largest number of lawsuits in North Asia (Japan and Korea), followed by South Asia, Western Europe, Eastern Europe, the UK and Canada. Those companies predict that East Asia (China, Hong Kong, Taiwan and Macau) will be the foreign locale likely to generate the largest increases in litigation over the next three years. This anticipated increase likely is a reflection of that region's rapid economic growth and reputed laxity in certain areas of legal compliance (i.e., in the areas of intellectual property and financial services).
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.
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.
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.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
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?