Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Challenges to the DOJ's Jurisdiction over Extraterritorial Conduct
October 20, 2016
Editor's note: Last month, the authors observed that the U.S. Supreme Court has in recent years attempted to limit the extraterritorial reach of federal courts, making it harder for them to get personal jurisdiction over foreign defendants (Daimler AG v. Bauman, 134 S. Ct. 746 (2014), and limiting the reach of federal securities laws (Morrison v. National Australia Bank, 561 U.S. 247 (2010)) and the Alien Tort Statute (Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum, 133 S. Ct. 1659 (2013)). The results of these efforts have been less than stellar. However, as the authors point out here, there are some defenses that may still work.
Presumption Against Extraterritoriality in Criminal Cases
Morrison and its progeny do provide some assistance for future attacks on extraterritorial application of criminal laws. For instance, the Supreme Court has made clear that courts must apply a presumption that federal laws only apply to conduct that took place within the United States, and that the presumption may be rebutted only when there is a “clearly expressed congressional intent” that the law apply extraterritorially. RJR Nabisco, 136 S. Ct. at 2100. After RJR Nabisco , it is crystal clear that this presumption against extraterritoriality applies not only to civil statutes, but also to criminal ones.
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?