Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Features
The latest cases for your review.
Features
The real estate business in New York is, to paraphrase the late Sen. Lloyd Bentsen's comment about Texas politics, a contact sport. That rough-and-tumble attitude extends to real estate auctions, where both buyers and sellers need to be aware of the potential risks and the possibility for manipulation.
Features
Accounting-Malpractice Claim/Arbitration<br>Contributory and Vicarious Copyright Infringement/Interlocutory Appeal<br>Copyright Infringement/Substantial Similarity<br>Copyright-Infringement Filing/Bankruptcy Purchase
Features
Part One of this series discussed special perfection rules for purchase money security interest in inventory and additional risks when leased goods are 'inventory.' This second installment addresses: buyer in ordinary course of business under revised Article '9-320(A); power to transfer and entrusting under '2-403; and rights of buyers and Sublessee in ordinary course under '2A-305.
Features
Many U.S. financial institutions that have participated in equipment leasing transactions (particularly in the large-ticket and municipal markets) in the last 20 years will be keenly aware that as the structures grew ever more complicated, Congress and the federal regulatory agencies grew intensely interested. Whether the institution had a major role in the transaction or simply provided a service, some degree of scrutiny could be expected, often in conjunction with a tax audit of its client. The risks to financial institutions from participating in complex structured finance transactions of all types became a source for concern for banking and securities regulators. The principal federal regulators responded in 2004 with a proposal that financial institutions investigate, and bear responsibility for evaluating, the legal, tax, and accounting basis of their clients' complex structured finance transactions. The goal: to limit the institutions' own credit, legal, and reputational risk from such participation.
Features
In reviewing <i>KSR Int'l v. Teleflex, Inc.</i> (No. 04-1350), the Supreme Court is set to tackle one of the fundamental issues of patentability ' the standard for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. '103. As expected, this case has generated significant interest and numerous <i>amicus</i> briefs have been filed. With oral argument expected to be heard late this month, this case marks the first time in 30 years that the Court will examine this particular issue.
Features
It is well settled that a patent or copyright licensee may not sublicense that right absent specific authorization. <i>See, eg, Gardner v. Nike, Inc.</i> 279 F.3d 774 (9th Cir. 2004); <i>Unarco Industries, Inc. v. Kelley Co.</i>, 465 F.2d 1303 (7th Cir. 1972); <i>In re Patient Education Media, Inc,</i> 210 B.R. 237 (S.D.N.Y 1997). Trademarks are often grouped with patents and copyrights as 'intellectual property,' but fundamental differences among the genres exist. <i>See, eg, Sony Corp of America v. University City Studios</i>, 464 U.S. 417, 439 n.17 (1984). Do the same policies supporting the so-called 'no sublicense' rule in the patent and copyright context apply to trademarks and related publicity rights?
Features
Highlights of the latest franchising news from around the country.
Features
As headlines continue to report data security breaches at an alarming rate, discussion often focuses on the need for enhanced technical controls, such as two-factor authentication and encryption, to protect sensitive, personally identifiable information. The role of the company employee, both as the cause of, and the first line of defense against, security breaches is often lost in the analysis. Yet developing law is increasingly requiring administrative or procedural controls, particularly those directed at employees, as a component of a legally compliant security program.
Features
The issue of directors' and officers' liability for deepening insolvency has been the source of a significant number of judicial opinions over the past few years with little consensus being reached on the viability of these claims. This may have changed however. Despite the Delaware Bankruptcy Court's recent decision, <i>In re: Scott Acquisition Corp.</i>, 2006 WL 1732277 (Bankr. D. Del. 2006), which ruled that directors and officers of insolvent subsidiary companies owe fiduciary duties to both its creditors and the subsidiary itself. The Delaware Chancery Court, Vice Chancellor Leo E. Strine presiding, subsequently and resoundingly waded into the breach of fiduciary duty and zone of insolvency arena with its decision in ,<i>Trenwick America Litigation Trust v. Ernst &Young, L.L.P., et al.</i>
