Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Following the events of 9/11, commercial and governmental interest in anti-terror technologies (“ATT”) skyrocketed. Demand jumped for all types of goods and services that could help to protect valuable assets against terrorist attacks. However, the designers, producers, and users of such technology quickly recognized the potentially devastating liability they might face in the event that such technology failed.
A legislative solution to this problem followed ' the SAFETY Act (the “Act”). The fundamental intent of the Act is to encourage companies to design, develop, and deploy ATT to protect high-value terrorist targets owned by government or commercial entities, here in the U.S. and abroad. The Act achieves this by providing to the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) the authority to evaluate a technology's efficacy and utility, as well as the power to eliminate or reduce the threat of catastrophic liability should such companies be sued in tort in the United States following an act of terrorism involving their ATT. Providers and users of ATT run significant risks if they fail to understand and utilize this important risk mitigation tool.
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
There is no efficient market for the sale of bankruptcy assets. Inefficient markets yield a transactional drag, potentially dampening the ability of debtors and trustees to maximize value for creditors. This article identifies ways in which investors may more easily discover bankruptcy asset sales.
Why is it that those who are best skilled at advocating for others are ill-equipped at advocating for their own skills and what to do about it?
“Baseball arbitration” refers to the process used in Major League Baseball in which if an eligible player's representative and the club ownership cannot reach a compensation agreement through negotiation, each party enters a final submission and during a formal hearing each side — player and management — presents its case and then the designated panel of arbitrators chooses one of the salary bids with no other result being allowed. This method has become increasingly popular even beyond the sport of baseball.
The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
Active reading comprises many daily tasks lawyers engage in, including highlighting, annotating, note taking, comparing and searching texts. It demands more than flipping or turning pages.