Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

Search


Look, But Don't Touch: The Consequences of Removing, Modifying or Destructing Visual Art in Buildings
August 01, 2003
Unknowing building owners can incur substantial liability when incorporating certain artistic works within their buildings. The Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990 (VARA), 17 U.S.C. 106A, limits the ability of a building owner to alter, move, or remove a "work of visual art." This article will provide an overview of this statute and its interpretation and application by various courts.
IP News
August 01, 2003
Highlights of the latest intellectual property news and cases from around the country.
Debtor Has Right to File Bankruptcy to Limit Landlord's Claims
August 01, 2003
One of the fundamental policies of the Bankruptcy Code is to provide an equal distribution to all creditors of a debtor's estate. There are a variety of tools under the Bankruptcy Code to accomplish these goals. One such power is the statutory limitation of a landlord's rejection damage claim under section 502(b)(6).
'Personal' Alter Ego Claims in Bankruptcy
August 01, 2003
<b><i>Part One of a Two-Part Article</i></b> With corporate fraud and bankruptcy filings on the rise, creditors are increasingly looking to related entities, corporate shareholders, directors and officers to pay their claims when the corporation goes belly-up. Unfortunately, bankruptcy courts have made it virtually impossible for creditors to maintain individual alter ego claims against the debtor's shareholders and affiliates. As a result, crafting an alter ego claim that will survive an attack by the bankruptcy trustee (or the bankruptcy court itself) requires finesse.
A New Dimension to Asbestos-Related Bankruptcies?
August 01, 2003
A recent jury verdict in California threatens to break wide open the uneasy issue of aggregated insurance payments in asbestos litigation. <i>Fuller-Austin Insulation Co. v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., et al.</i>, No. BC 116835 (Calif. Super. Los Angeles Co.). Its ramifications, however, reach far beyond insurance coverage litigation into every asbestos-related or mass tort bankruptcy.
The Bankruptcy Hotline
August 01, 2003
Recent cases of importance to your practice.
Practice Tip: Consider Filing a Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment
August 01, 2003
When your motions for summary judgment in product liability cases are denied, your usual reaction is probably to move on and to begin focusing your case on how to win at trial. While that is usually the best approach, that doesn't mean you necessarily have to give up on the hope of winning the case on summary judgment before trial. Orders denying summary judgment are interlocutory, and so a court has the inherent power to reconsider them and change them at any time before entry of final judgment. <i>See, e.g., Freeman v. Kohl &amp; Vick Mach. Works, Inc.</i> 673 F. 2d 196 (7th Cir. 1982). Nothing in the rules bars a party from filing a renewed motion for summary judgment and, as described below, there are times when such a motion is called for.
When It's OK to Demolish the Evidence: Tactics for Destructive Examination and Testing
August 01, 2003
Destructive testing or examination of evidence in product liability cases may be a high-risk proposition. Proposing a destructive test or examination often discloses the thought processes of counsel or expert witnesses. In most cases, there probably will be only one opportunity to perform a destructive test or examination, so it must be done right the first time. The party proposing the destructive test or examination will be bound by the result, good or bad.
Case Notes
August 01, 2003
Highlights of the latest product liability cases from around the country.
Avoiding Ambush: Tips for the Successful Preparation and Presentation of Witnesses
August 01, 2003
A successful defense against a consumer's claim that she was damaged from using a medication manufactured by one of your pharmaceutical clients may hinge significantly on the testimony provided by a research scientist, a pharmacologist, or perhaps a warnings or a marketing specialist. While these witnesses have key sources of knowledge about the product, its development, testing, labeling and/or distribution, they may also bring with them fears and inadequacies that could result in the ambush of your defense.

MOST POPULAR STORIES

  • 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.
    Read More ›
  • 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.
    Read More ›
  • Substantive Non-Consolidation Opinion Letters
    <b><I>Considerations for Bankruptcy Counsel</I></b><p>Substantive non-consolidation opinion letters have long been a regular “check-the-box” item in large commercial real estate transactions. While substantive consolidation jurisprudence has not changed materially over the past decade, these opinion letters should not be treated lightly by borrowers or their counsel.
    Read More ›