Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Same As It Ever Was?
In the past few years, the Supreme Court has issued several important decisions limiting the availability of class-wide arbitration. While the impact on class-wide arbitration itself has been explored intensively, the potential impact on other forms of aggregation has received somewhat less attention, even though principles announced in these class arbitration cases could have an impact on the consolidation of commercial arbitration, including insurance coverage disputes. Lower courts, however, largely consider the landscape for consolidation relatively unchanged. Although several important questions remain unanswered by the Supreme Court, present case law suggests that arbitration clauses may permit consolidation even if those clauses do not address the issue overtly, and that arbitrators, rather than courts, make those decisions.
1. Consolidation of Insurance Arbitration: The Existing Regime
Arbitration is an attractive alternative to traditional litigation for many insurance coverage litigants, potentially offering heightened guarantees of confidentiality and the opportunity to draw upon rules providing expedited or more limited discovery. In some circumstances, arbitration can also provide a more cost-effective and a faster means of resolving disputes, though this, of course, varies considerably depending upon the nature of the dispute and the specific procedures involved. The private, contractual nature of arbitration, however, raises challenges for insurance disputes involving numerous related policies, such as commercial liability claims affecting both primary and excess policies. If such disputes were litigated in a judicial forum, the governing procedural rules would typically provide various ways of determining whether the parties should be brought together in one proceeding, such as joinder of parties or consolidation of actions for purposes of trial. Commercial arbitrations, by contrast, may lack well-established procedures on this point, and interested parties often simply move the courts or the arbitrators to order (or to prevent) consolidation of related arbitrations.
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?