Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Editor's note: In July, e-Discovery Law & Strategy presented the first part of this article. Here's the second half. In case you missed us last month, we've reprinted the top of the article here, and picked up at question 8. Click here for the first part, with questions 1 through 7.
As is often the case, the best way to understand the importance of a component in a process, whether the process or its elements are simple or complex, is to consider the consequences of that component's absence. In the case of e-discovery, miscommunication that might occur between an e-discovery provider and client can cause problems ranging from additional expense to collect and process electronic files properly to sanctions for failing to produce all relevant materials.
In a worst-case scenario, counsel and others could face criminal penalties for spoliation of evidence that a court determines was caused by avoidable delays and poor communication among parties.
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.
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.