Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Product liability law practice can get prickly, and why not? The stakes are high. Consumer injuries (or the potential threat of them) and the bad press that may follow can lead to lost business and even bankruptcy, and individuals' careers and reputations can be ruined. It is no wonder, then, that those who find themselves on the receiving end of a product liability lawsuit and its attendant bad publicity sometimes fight back. So it was in a recent case in which a company, publicly accused by a plaintiff's lawyers of using non-FDA-approved medical devices, fought back by bringing a defamation suit against the opposing attorneys. The case was thrown out by a California court, and the plaintiff appealed. The decision in the appeal, Healthsmart Pacific Inc. v. (Brian S.) Kabateck, 17 C.D.O.C 244 (C.A. 2d 12/19/16) (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. Case No. B264300), offers some insights into what kinds of allegations may be publicized, and in what circumstances, when a product liability charge is brought.
Before the Personal Injury Lawsuit
The story began before the product liability/personal injury lawsuit was filed, with a sordid tale of political and financial goings-on that landed a company, its founder and a California State Senator in hot water.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
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
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 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.
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.
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.
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?