Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Supreme Court's <i>Troice</i> Has Important Risk Management Implications
On Feb. 26, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Chadbourne & Parke v. Troice, 134 S. Ct. 1058 (2014), holding by a 7-2 vote that the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 (SLUSA) does not preclude state law class actions where the plaintiffs allege that they purchased uncovered securities that the defendants said were backed by securities listed on a national exchange ' a misrepresentation. The court found that the victims of Allen Stanford's multibillion-dollar Ponzi scheme could pursue state law class action claims against numerous individuals and companies ' including attorneys, accountants, brokers and investment advisers ' for allegedly aiding and abetting a Ponzi scheme. On April 14, in one of the first applications of Troice, Judge Thomas P. Griesa ruled that a group of Madoff securities investors who suffered losses in Bernard Madoff's Ponzi scheme were permitted to add state law claims to the previously filed class action complaint in In re: Tremont Securities Law, State Law and Insurance Litigation, No. 08-11117 (TPG), 2014 WL 1465713 (S.D.N.Y. April 14, 2014).
Judge Griesa's reversal in Tremont demonstrates the significance of Troice to lawyers and other third-party advisers (who may have increased exposure to secondary liability in securities-related litigation under state law causes of action); and to class-action litigants (who now may have more opportunities to pursue state law claims alongside federal securities law claims). This article discusses: 1) the implications of Troice for third-party advisers with respect to aiding and abetting claims in class actions; and 2) how law firms can limit increased exposure to third-party liability.
Brighter Line Announced in Troice Increases Exposure of Lawyers to Third-Party Liability
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?