Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
U.S. Supreme Court Settles Whether Illegality Claims Go to Arbitrator
Until the recent decision in Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. Cardegna, 126 S.Ct. 1204 (Feb. 21, 2006), there was some uncertainty as to how claims of illegality would fare against attempts to enforce arbitration agreements. The decision did not turn on whether the contract was void or voidable, as did earlier lower court decisions, but simply on whether the illegality claim was directed to the underlying contract or the arbitration clause itself. Relying on Prima Paint Corp. v. Flood & Conklin Mfg. Co., 388 U.S. 395 (1967), the Court treated the illegality claim in the same manner as a claim of fraud in the inducement and held that 'unless the challenge is to the arbitration clause itself, the issue of the contract's validity is considered by the arbitrator in the first instance.' 126 S.Ct. at 1206.
Buckeye was brought as a class action in the Florida state court, claiming that a check-cashing firm charged usurious interest. The allegedly usurious contract contained a standard arbitration clause and provided it would be governed by the Federal Arbitration Act ('FAA'). On a motion to compel arbitration by the check-cashing firm, the trial court ruled that since the contract was void ab initio (because it was illegal), the arbitration clause could not be enforced. The intermediate appellate court went the other way, holding that since the arbitration clause itself was not challenged as illegal, it could be enforced. The Florida Supreme Court reversed on the basis that to enforce an arbitration clause in an illegal agreement would 'breathe life into a contract that not only violates state law, but also is criminal in nature.' Id. at 1207.
Beach Boys Songs Written Decades Ago Triggered Current Quarrel With Lawyers
There's current litigation in the ongoing Beach Boys litigation saga. A lawsuit filed in 2019 against Nevada residents Mike Love and his wife Jacquelyne in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada that alleges inaccurate payment by the Loves under the retainer agreement and seeks $84.5 million in damages.
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.
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.
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.
Transfer Tax Implications on Real Property Leases
The real property transfer tax does not apply to all leases, and understanding the tax rules of the applicable jurisdiction can allow parties to plan ahead to avoid unnecessary tax liability.