Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Drug & Device News
FDA Issues Health Advisory for 'Morning After' Pill
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which is investigating recently reported serious adverse events associated with mifepristone (trade name Mifeprex', also known as RU-486, or the “Morning After” pill), issued a public health advisory July 19 highlighting the risk of sepsis when undergoing medical abortion using Mifeprex and misoprostol in a manner that is not consistent with the approved labeling. Between Septem-ber 2003 to June 2005, four deaths were blamed on these drugs. The bacteria thought to have caused the fatal infection has been identified in two of the cases. The other two cases are under investigation by the FDA in cooperation with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, state and local health departments and the manufacturer of Mifeprex. Doctors are urged to have a higher level of suspicion for sepsis in their patients taking Mifeprex. The FDA, which has of late been accused of “sitting on” information about possible drug dangers, seems to be taking a more open attitude about informing the public and health care community when drug problems occur. Dr. Steven Galson, Acting Director of the FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in a statement released along with the warning about Mifeprex, “The FDA is committed to sharing emerging drug information with the public and we believe it is important to share with healthcare providers and patients the latest serious reports of infection associated with this drug that we have received.”
Guidant Recalls Leaking Pacemakers
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
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
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.
The Article 8 Opt In
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.
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.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
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.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
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.