Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision in Hall Street Associates, L. L. C. v. Mattel, Inc. (Slip Opinion, No. 06-989) had long been anticipated by the litigation and arbitration communities and has been the subject of extensive commentary and debate in the brief period since it was rendered. The issue (which had created a sharp conflict in the Circuits) was whether the standards for judicial review of arbitration awards, as set forth in Sections 9-11 of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), could be contractually expanded by the arbitrating parties. More particularly, the question was whether parties could contract to inject traditional grounds for appeal into FAA arbitrations or whether they were limited to what was specifically set forth in Sections 9-11 of the FAA, e.g., 'evident partiality,' 'fraud,' 'corruption,' refusing to hear 'pertinent and material' evidence, and acts exceeding the powers of the arbitrator.
The Hall Street Court held that parties could not contractually expand the standards for judicial review in Sections 9-11 of the FAA. A likely, practical outgrowth of this ruling is that arbitrating parties will also be unable to contractually expand standards for judicial review under most if not all state arbitration statutes. This will make it more difficult for courts to overturn arbitration awards, and raises serious doubts about the continuing vitality of generally accepted decisions which hold that 'manifest disregard of the law' is a separate and distinct ground for challenging an arbitration award under the FAA.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
A common question that commercial landlords and tenants face is which of them is responsible for a repair to the subject premises. These disputes often center on whether the repair is "structural" or "nonstructural."