Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Yahoo!, the global Internet company, was accused by the families of jailed Chinese dissidents of abetting in the torture of pro-democracy activists by releasing data that allowed China's government to identify, arrest, and imprison the activists. Unocal, a California oil company, has been confronted with charges in a U.S. court of being complicit in the alleged forced labor, rape, and murder of Burmese citizens ' actually committed by the Burmese military government. Chiquita has been sued ' in a U.S. court ' in a case where it admitted paying money to paramilitary groups in Colombia to protect its workers. These companies are not alone. Similar accusations based on the actions of corrupt or repressive foreign regimes have been levied in U.S. courts against many other multinational corporations, including Coca-Cola, Exxon-Mobil, Firestone, and Royal Dutch/Shell.
In recent years, companies doing business in countries where human rights or environmental violations have occurred have found themselves dragged into U.S. courts as defendants in lawsuits brought by foreign plaintiffs to account for violations ' often committed by others, including foreign governments. Although some of these cases are well-known, the legal foundation for the claims is not. An obscure piece of legislation passed more than 200 years ago was raised in the case against Yahoo! and many others like it. Unfortunately, this strategy is only becoming more relevant. Although the statute was initially interpreted to provide redress in limited situations involving foreigners, including to provide comfort to reluctant foreign diplomats traveling to the United States in the post-Revolutionary period, it has more recently been used by U.S. Plaintiff's lawyers as a popular way of hauling multinational corporations into U.S. courts for torts actually committed by others where the companies did business.
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.
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.