Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Two years ago, the New York State Bar Association circulated a proposal that would add new consent grounds as well as unilateral no-fault grounds for divorce to the five fault grounds and one mutual-consent no-fault ground that already exist. Assemblywoman Helene Weinstein asked me, along with others, to comment on the NYSBA proposal. Following are some of the observations I made.
New Consent Grounds
The section of the NYSBA proposal that would add another consent ground for divorce — where the husband and wife have consented under oath to the granting of a judgment of divorce — presents only minor problems. With changes to deal with those problems, it should be enacted. This new ground would allow parties who had settled all their issues by means of an agreement or stipulation to get an immediate divorce without waiting one year, as is now required by DRL 170(6), our current bilateral no-fault consent ground. It would also permit parties who could not come to an agreement as to all issues – but who both want a divorce – to agree to a divorce but present the other issues to the court for resolution. Such a provision would do away with the need for collusive “constructive abandonment” grounds.
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.
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?