Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Movers & Shakers
Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP has announced that Robert Shulman has joined the firm's Washington, DC office as a partner in the Insurance Recovery Practice Group. Shulman comes to the firm from Kasowitz Benson Torres & Friedman LLP.
Shulman has more than 30 years of experience in the insurance recovery area. His practice includes litigating on behalf of corporations and in complex disputes with insurance companies regarding coverage for environmental claims, products claims, asbestos and other large-scale tort claims, construction claims, directors' and officers' claims, securities-related claims, hurricane-related claims, and claims for business interruption losses. He also is experienced in class action litigation, including opposing certification as well as the development and implementation of both certification and the merits. He has represented clients in cases designated for multidistrict coordination and has experience in all forms of alternative dispute resolution in the context of a wide range of matters.
Shulman's clients have included International Paper Co., MBIA, Amerada Hess Corp., Electrolux, Phillips Petroleum Co., DuPont and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
Shulman has more than 30 years of experience in the insurance recovery area. His practice includes litigating on behalf of corporations and in complex disputes with insurance companies regarding coverage for environmental claims, products claims, asbestos and other large-scale tort claims, construction claims, directors' and officers' claims, securities-related claims, hurricane-related claims, and claims for business interruption losses. He also is experienced in class action litigation, including opposing certification as well as the development and implementation of both certification and the merits. He has represented clients in cases designated for multidistrict coordination and has experience in all forms of alternative dispute resolution in the context of a wide range of matters.
Shulman's clients have included
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 Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.