Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Part One of a Two-Part Series
From the moment a manufacturer decides to undertake a new venture, it creates a staggering number of documents. These documents run the gamut from new product designs to market studies to safety test results. Even small-scale manufacturers may generate enough documents to fill a small warehouse, thus begging the question: Are we required by law to keep all these documents?
The short answer is 'no.' The law does not require a company to maintain every document it has for all eternity. Nevertheless, companies do have a legal obligation to preserve documents and other evidence once the company has notice that such materials are potentially relevant to future litigation or government investigation. If a company fails to preserve these materials once it has notice of their potential use in litigation, the company has engaged in 'spoliation,' which is defined as the destruction or material alteration of evidence or the failure to preserve property for another's use as evidence in pending or reasonably foreseeable litigation. Once spo-liation is found, courts can im-pose a wide variety of sanctions on the party who failed to preserve relevant evidence. This two-part article addresses some of the issues involved in document retention in a product liability context.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
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
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.