Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Features
In a recent development that will likely be of interest to companies conducting business in Europe, the American Bar Association has recently urged the U.S. government to sign, ratify and implement the Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements (the 'Choice of Court Convention'). The Choice of Court Convention accomplishes many goals that have long been sought by the United States. Most importantly, it provides a mechanism for the recognition of certain judgments rendered by U.S. courts, namely judgments resolving a dispute arising out of a commercial agreement that was submitted pursuant to an exclusive choice of court agreement. (See American Bar Association, Recommendation adopted by the House of Delegates (Aug. 7-8, 2006), at www.abanet.org/intlaw/policy/investment/hcca0806.pdf.)
Features
Understandably, companies have become more sensitive about protecting confidential, proprietary business information from disclosure to competitors and others outside the company. A recent ruling by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, <i>Venetian Casino Report v. EEOC</i>, 2006 WL 2806568 (D.D. Cir. 2006), demonstrates that such disclosures may occur in the most unexpected ways.
Features
In recent years, debtors in large corporate bankruptcies have sometimes sought and obtained, in varying degrees, authority at the outset of bankruptcy cases for severe restrictions on trading in claims against the debtors by substantial claimholders. In practice, however, these debt-trading orders have chilled the market for trading in debt securities and served to entrench existing management by effectively precluding substantial investors from acquiring meaningful positions in the debtor's debt securities.
Features
Fourth-quarter roundup of all the latest compliance rulings.
Features
Understandably, companies have become more sensitive about protecting confidential, proprietary business information from disclosure to competitors and others outside the company.<br>A recent ruling by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, <i>Venetian Casino Report v. EEOC</i>, 2006 WL 2806568 (D.D. Cir. 2006), demonstrates that such disclosures may occur in the most unexpected ways.
Features
In the post-Enron world, many public companies have come under intense scrutiny from the government. A diverse chorus of critics argues that the Department of Justice (DOJ) has gone too far, citing the overzealousness of line-level prosecutors, their failure to adhere to the measured tone struck by higher-level officials in their public pronouncements, and their general tendency to treat companies as racketeering organizations.
Features
As the copyright terms of many iconic, character-based works of the 20th Century near closure, owners of these works face the question as to what extent they can enjoy exclusive rights in the characters they have created. Enterprising third parties raise the related question: Does the expiration of copyright mean these works and characters can be freely exploited? Once a copyright term lapses, an original work is said to pass into the public domain, available for all to freely copy and exploit. However, continued trademark protection for a character may delay or complicate the character's passage into the public domain. A careful analysis of fundamental principles of trademark and copyright law and relevant case law illuminate certain legal guideposts for navigating through the complexities of character protection.
Features
<i>'Fraud!' cried the maddened thousands, and echo answered fraud;But one scornful look from Casey and the audience was awed.' Ernest Lawrence Thayer,</i> Casey at the Bat.As most readers will know, after this couplet in which the baseball player Casey scorns to dispute the umpire's call on the second strike, Casey proceeds to swing and miss the third pitch, striking out. Thayer's poem does not contain any indication that the slugger then sought to go back and contest the ruling on the second strike.Unlike the notorious batsman, however, insurance companies frequently bring actions to void coverage on the grounds of alleged misrepresentation or 'fraud' in the application for insurance, when they themselves have scorned to contest coverage upon first learning that they may have a basis to do so. Whatever the rules were concerning untimely protests in 1880s semipro baseball, today's insurance coverage law is clear: An insurance company waives any right to void coverage for alleged misrepresentations or omissions in the application, if, after it learns it may have grounds for such relief, it does not promptly seek the relief, but instead takes any action inconsistent with an intent to treat the policy as void.
Features
On Dec. 1, 2006, new amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure addressing discovery of electronically stored information will take effect unless Congress enacts legislation to reject, modify, or defer the amendments. The amendments to Rules 16, 26, 33, 34, 37, and 45, which were approved by the U.S. Supreme Court on April 12, 2006, attempt to bring the discovery rules up-to-date in an Information Age where the majority of new communication and information is now created, disseminated, and stored in electronic media.
Features
One question that has been raised in pre-emption decisions is the degree of deference to be shown an agency's explicit statement that it intends certain failure-to-warn claims to be pre-empted. For example, in the pharmaceutical arena, the Food and Drug Administration ('FDA') through the Department of Justice ('DOJ') filed amicus briefs in several lawsuits to reiterate its position on pre-emption of state law tort claims. In these briefs, the United States stressed that in the context of warnings, 'more is not always better.' <i>Amicus</i> Brief for the United States, <i>Kallas v. Pfizer</i>, No. 04-00998 (D. Utah Sept. 29, 2005) at 28. The FDA's regulation of prescription drugs ensures each drug's optimal use by requiring inclusion of only scientifically substantiated warnings. <i>Id.</i> Plaintiffs' failure-to-warn claims therefore 'stand as an obstacle' to the FDA's accomplishment of its congressionally mandated purpose of ensuring the public health and are therefore pre-empted. <i>See Id.</i> The FDA has also stated its position on pre-emption in the preamble to its Rulemaking for Labeling requirement, which became effective on June 30, 2006. <i>See</i> 21 C.F.R. '10.85(d)(1) (2006).