Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Features
This article explains, in the bankruptcy litigation context, the probate exception, an arcane and traditionally misunderstood common law exception to federal jurisdiction.
Features
Last month, we reviewed what a partner scorecard is and why keeping score is important. This month we review how to tailor a scorecard to your individual firm's goals.
Features
Money. Every firm has it. But unfortunately, some people want to take what doesn't belong to them, and they may seek out ways to target your firm's cash. The elements of motive, opportunity and rationalization are present in nearly every scheme. Eliminating or mitigating any of these factors will make it more difficult for a fraudster to target your firm. In a tightening economy, it is more crucial than ever that you remain diligent about protecting assets. The identification, implementation and testing of internal controls over cash receipts and disbursements is a critical step, because even small dollar amounts taken over months or years can add up and entangle your firm in a costly situation.
Features
The latest news of importance to you and your practice.
Features
In order to minimize the legal risks presented by telecommuting employees, a prudent employer will enter into written agreements with its telecommuting employees, setting forth the obligations and expectations of each party involved in the telecommuting relationship.
Features
This article focuses on key legal duties engendered by telecommuting arrangements; the significant legal risks triggered by regular or periodic work-at-home arrangements; and practical steps employers can take to mitigate these risks.
Features
Policyholder counsel have heralded the recent New York Court of Appeals' decisions in <i>Bi-Economy</i> and <i>Panasia</i> as victories for insureds due to the court's recognition, in certain circumstances, of claims for consequential damages beyond the limits of an insurance policy. However, a close reading of the majority opinions in these cases demonstrates that the Court of Appeals has taken only a tentative step in the direction of allowing claims under New York law for damages beyond policy limits. Based on the analytical construct used by the court to address the policyholders' claims in these cases, insurers have several avenues to challenge the application of these holdings to future cases and may ultimately limit these decisions to the specific facts under which they were decided.
Features
In-house counsel and executives within the railroad, logistics, and transportation industries need to be aware of an increasing likelihood of litigation-related to global warming. In the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court's 2007 decision in <i>Massachusetts v. EPA</i>, suits have been filed seeking to impose liability on companies whose activities emit carbon dioxide. As additional suits arise, they will doubtless reach companies in the oil, electric power, auto, and railroad sectors. These developments raise an important question: Are companies in transportation-related fields adequately prepared for the acceleration of climate change-based tort cases that their industry will likely encounter in the near future?
Features
This is the second installment of a two-part series on the proposed move from a patent system granting priority of patent rights based upon invention dates to a system in which priority is based primarily upon filing dates. The first installment discussed the history behind the current first-to-invent system and the basics of the proposed changes to the system. This installment explores the statutory bars under the proposed legislation and other changes affecting prior art.
Features
In a recent case, a patent owner claimed to have invented side impact airbag sensing. The patent enabled an embodiment; that was stipulated. In opposition to a motion for summary judgment of invalidity for lack of enablement, the owner asserted that enablement of a preferred embodiment satisfied the enablement requirement of the patent law. It didn't. The case is only one of several consistent cases. You should beware, and consider the matter in both patent prosecution and litigation. If you own a patent, and wish for a broad construction, be careful what you wish for.