Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Rebuttal: A Response to the 'Tale' on Class Action
Messrs. Wallace and Kelly's (Authors) historical account of the Rule 23(b)(3) class action (see article infra) goes like this: Once, “public interest lawyers” used the class action to “help[] facilitate major social justice reforms,” but now, avaricious plaintiff's attorneys misuse it to enrich themselves at the public expense. Though they used to bring class actions to do good, plaintiff's attorneys now bring them to get rich. And what is the solution to the corrupting of the modern plaintiff's lawyer? Why, ban the rule 23(b)(3) action altogether. And in any event, they say, whatever plaintiff's attorneys' intentions, they are not doing any good: Class actions do not deter malfeasance, and do not compensate victims.
Doing Good and Doing Well
One problem with the Authors' public interest/private enrichment dichotomy is that it is based upon the incorrect assumption that attorneys may only act either in the public interest or for their own financial gain. Must surgeons choose between doing good and making money? Must inventors? Must architects? Of course not! Monetary reward for success is the genius of capitalism, and entrepreneurism has a positive connotation except when it appears in the same sentence as “lawyer.” But it should have a positive connotation in this sphere as well. Our small firm alone has played a role in recovering over $15 billion for investors and consumers, including: over $7 billion plus for Enron investors; over $6 billion for WorldCom investors; over $1 billion for homeowners with defective building products; and over $25 million for Holocaust survivors whose personal property was misappropriated by the government.
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.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?
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.