Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Export controls are a morass of overlapping jurisdictions dotted with strict liability and criminal landmines. Worse, criminal and civil penalties have been severely ratcheted up recently, and more appear on the horizon. An October 2004 article by George Prettyman and Gregory Wallace in this newsletter described the regulatory regime governing 'dual-use' products. But even since 2004, prosecution resources have swollen and priorities have shifted markedly. As part of its recently established National Security Division, the Department of Justice (DOJ) appointed a National Export Control Coordinator tasked with building the DOJ's capacity to investigate and prosecute export violations. Specifically, the Coordinator is to create greater synergy between the DOJ and other export enforcement and licensing agencies, oversee prosecutorial training for U.S. Attorneys, and monitor the progress of their export control prosecutions nationwide. For their part, U.S. Attorneys have increased funding and implemented new legal tools (including sending agents overseas or having them work 'undercover') to enable them to carry out their mandate in support of the Coordinator's work.
What's Covered?
Exports are defined broadly. They include items and services transferred by any means, including electronically, to a foreign destination or a foreign national in the United States. Most items can be exported without a license. Controlled items fall under two categories: 1) defense articles and services, and 2) civil and 'dual-use' items. The first category falls under the purview of the Department of State, which maintains the U.S. Munitions List of regulated export items. Dual-use exports under the second category are also regulated for 'national security reasons,' 15 C.F.R.
' 738.2, because they have both civil and military applications. Such items include high-speed cameras, metal alloys, restraint devices, and certain types of computers and software. The principal regulatory agency for these items, however, is the Department of Commerce, which, through its Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS), investigates unlawful exports of civil and dual-use items.
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.