Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The Stoneridge Decision
On Jan. 15, 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its decision in Stoneridge Investment Partners v. Scientific Atlanta, the case that has been called 'the most important securities law case to reach the Court this decade' and 'the securities lawyer's Roe v. Wade.' (Ariane de Vogue, Supreme Court to Examine Scope of Investor Rights, ABC News, Oct. 9, 2007 [quoting Donald Langevoort, Professor, Georgetown University Law Center]). While the case had both domestic and international corporations concerned about its potential to dramatically expand the scope of 10b-5 claims in order to target third parties doing business with public companies that concern can now be laid to rest.
With this decision, the Court determined that third parties such as investment banks, accounting firms, and lawyers, among others, who contract with companies that commit securities fraud are not liable to shareholders of those companies as primary violators of ' 10(b) and Rule 10b-5. In a 5-3 decision (Justice Breyer took no part in the consideration or decision of the case), the Supreme Court firmly declared secondary actors free from liability for participating in a principal's fraud against its investors, so long as there is no reliance on the actions of the secondary actor by the investors in making their investment decisions.
Holding
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?