Internet Gambling Banned
October 30, 2006
The House and Senate worked late into the night on Friday, Sept. 29, 2006 to finalize 'H.R. 4954: Security and Accountability For Every Port Act' or the SAFE Port Act and get it to the House floor. By early in the morning on Saturday, Sept. 30, 2006, just before adjourning for the election break, the House had passed the bill by a count of 409-2, and the Senate had agreed to the conference report by unanimous consent. Senate Majority Leader, and Presidential hopeful Bill Frist (R-TN) was the point-person for certain groups lobbying to ban Internet gambling with the addition of Title VIII to the legislation.
Deference to Agency Decisions: Lessons from Recent Pharmaceutical Pre-emption Decisions
October 30, 2006
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).
Negotiating Broker Agreements
October 30, 2006
Your company (the 'Company') has decided it needs to find additional space for lease and/or to dispose of excess space and, after extensive due diligence, the Company has identified the ideal real estate broker (the 'Broker') to work with in the transaction(s). You and your new Broker have shaken hands on the basic terms of engagement (such as term and commission rates), and you have received and are now asked to review your Broker's standard form of retention agreement (the 'Agreement'). The Agreement, as is customary with most broker's standard forms of retention agreements, is only a couple of pages long. Should the Company sign it? After you have considered the issues described in this article and negotiated to protect the Company's interests to fit your particular circumstances, the answer is 'yes.' This article discusses some of the common issues that you may want to explore before the Company signs and delivers the Broker's form of retention agreement.
Bit Parts
October 30, 2006
Accounting-Malpractice Claim/Arbitration<br>Contributory and Vicarious Copyright Infringement/Interlocutory Appeal<br>Copyright Infringement/Substantial Similarity<br>Copyright-Infringement Filing/Bankruptcy Purchase
Practice Notes
October 30, 2006
Major L.A. Firms Face Fallout From Reshuffling<br>Cooley-Alschuler Merger Talks Ended<br>Loeb's Base Expands To Media, Internet
Revised Proposal: Understanding the Interagency Statement on Complex Structured Finance Activities
October 30, 2006
Many U.S. financial institutions that have participated in equipment leasing transactions (particularly in the large-ticket and municipal markets) in the last 20 years will be keenly aware that as the structures grew ever more complicated, Congress and the federal regulatory agencies grew intensely interested. Whether the institution had a major role in the transaction or simply provided a service, some degree of scrutiny could be expected, often in conjunction with a tax audit of its client. The risks to financial institutions from participating in complex structured finance transactions of all types became a source for concern for banking and securities regulators. The principal federal regulators responded in 2004 with a proposal that financial institutions investigate, and bear responsibility for evaluating, the legal, tax, and accounting basis of their clients' complex structured finance transactions. The goal: to limit the institutions' own credit, legal, and reputational risk from such participation.
Blogging and the Workplace
October 30, 2006
Blogs can reach millions of readers long before the employer learns about a potentially worrisome posting. No laws specifically regulate blogging per se, and there's virtually no guiding case law. And so, employers must look elsewhere for guidance on balancing employees' interest in life away from work and ensuring that employees' blogging doesn't damage business interests; that elsewhere is a new destination on the company document roster: a blogging policy.
Betting on Litigation
October 30, 2006
For all the publicity that our litigious society generates, the decision to sue or not, or even to send a so-called lawyer letter, is often agonizing for any business owners or principals.<br>This dilemma is particularly strong for the smaller firms that compose so much of the e-commerce sector. While the media often perceives lawyers as nothing more than 'ambulance chasers' constantly looking for personal injury lawsuits to stock their personal treasuries, most businesses should prefer to resolve disputes outside the courtroom.
