Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Movers & Shakers
Dickstein Shapiro LLP has announced that Kirk Pasich, leader of the firm's Insurance Coverage Practice, has been named by the Los Angeles Business Journal as one of the top 10 litigators in Los Angeles.
“I am honored to be recognized for the successes we have been able to achieve in recovering insurance assets for clients in Los Angeles and across the country,” said Pasich. “Being included among such an impressive list of peers makes this recognition all the more meaningful.”
“Kirk Pasich not only provides exceptional leadership for our firm's premier Insurance Coverage Practice, but as this recognition demonstrates, in addition to his many additional excellent attributes, he also is an outstanding litigator,” said Michael Nannes, Dickstein Shapiro's chairman.
Pasich, a former member of this newsletter's Board of Editors, conducts an active trial and appellate practice. He has negotiated large insurance recoveries for his clients, including recoveries of more than several hundred million dollars, and has served as lead trial counsel in many jury trials. In his most recent trial (October 2008), Pasich served as lead trial counsel for Sempra Energy in a suit against an insurance broker, obtaining a $48.5 million jury verdict. He has helped clients obtain more than $2 billion in insurance recoveries since Jan. 1, 2007.
“I am honored to be recognized for the successes we have been able to achieve in recovering insurance assets for clients in Los Angeles and across the country,” said Pasich. “Being included among such an impressive list of peers makes this recognition all the more meaningful.”
“Kirk Pasich not only provides exceptional leadership for our firm's premier Insurance Coverage Practice, but as this recognition demonstrates, in addition to his many additional excellent attributes, he also is an outstanding litigator,” said Michael Nannes,
Pasich, a former member of this newsletter's Board of Editors, conducts an active trial and appellate practice. He has negotiated large insurance recoveries for his clients, including recoveries of more than several hundred million dollars, and has served as lead trial counsel in many jury trials. In his most recent trial (October 2008), Pasich served as lead trial counsel for
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.