Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Southern California's First Asbestos Bankruptcy
Litigation involving asbestos, which was used for decades as a fire retardant in many products, has littered the legal landscape for years. Several major companies have over the course of the last several years filed for bankruptcy as a result of the onslaught of this litigation. Since the 1980s, many asbestos manufacturers, including Johns Manville, declared bankruptcy under the weight of liability payouts. To date, an estimated 85 companies have filed for bankruptcy claiming asbestos liabilities as the cause. A Rand Institute for Civil Justice report indicates that more than 730,000 asbestos claims have been filed since the early 1970s. Roughly 200,000 claims are still pending in state and federal courts nationwide. Estimates predict that up to 2.4 million claims still may be filed before asbestos litigation finally runs its course.
With many of the major defendants having filed their own bankruptcies, Plaintiffs' lawyers are now bringing actions against 'second-tier' and 'third-tier' defendants, including manufacturers of products such as brake linings that contain relatively small amounts of asbestos, as well as premises owners and product suppliers. The asbestos cases filed against J.T. Thorpe, Inc., a refractory manufacturer located in Southern California was just one such example.
Both the Federal government and states have attempted to deal with the elephantine mass of asbestos litigation. The Federal government has made its attempt through the 2005 F.A.I.R Act (Fairness in Asbestos Injury Resolution Act) and some states have made their attempts through litigation claims handling procedures.
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?