Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Movers & Shakers
Since toxic tort litigation partner Douglas Wah announced that he would be joining the larger Foley & Mansfield PLLP, the ripples have carried away 14 of Bishop, Barry, Howe, Haney & Ryder's 32 lawyers, all of whom focused on toxic tort litigation. Eight associates and partner J. Scott Wood joined Wah at 90-attorney Foley & Mansfield on April 1. Four more associates have left for other firms in recent weeks.
Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal LLP has announced that it will open a Dallas branch with U.S. Attorney Matthew D. Orwig as the new office's managing partner. Chicago-based Sonnenschein is opening the office at a time when Dallas is flush with lawyers looking for work. The 101-year-old firm had been considering for years moving into Texas to focus on high-end corporate litigation related to intellectual property, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, health care, and government enforcement actions. Sonnenschein, with 700 lawyers firmwide, decided to move into Dallas just as two of the city's well-known firms ' Jenkens & Gilchrist and Vial, Hamilton, Koch & Knox, L.L.P. ' were closing their doors.
Spriggs & Hollingsworth congratulates Ranjit (Ron) S. Dhindsa on his election to the firm's partnership and welcomes back Cameron F. Reeves as an associate. Dhindsa, 37, concentrates his practice on complex litigation, with an emphasis on pharmaceutical products liability and toxic tort matters. He has represented clients in both state and federal courts in multi-billion dollar pharmaceutical products cases, including class actions and multidistrict litigation.
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.