The increased use of blockchain technology and cryptocurrencies, which have spread to the entertainment industry, including for royalty revenue determinations, has given rise to a variety of disputes. Substantive issues regarding the offer, sale and trading of digital tokens are coming before the courts, prompting novel discovery questions in these cases.
Courts Are Divided on the Issue of Whether the Fraudulent Transfer Recovery Provision Applies Extraterritorially
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit recently issued an opinion concluding that trustees can pursue recovery from foreign subsequent transferees who received property in transactions that occurred entirely outside the United States. The opinion reversed two lower court rulings and arguably conflicts with Supreme Court precedent on extraterritoriality of U.S. legislation.
When a company declares bankruptcy, avoidance actions under Chapter 5 of the Bankruptcy Code can assist in securing extra cash for the debtor's dwindling estate. When a debtor-in-possession does not pursue these claims, creditors' committees often seek the bankruptcy court's authorization to pursue them on behalf of the estate. Once granted such authorization through a “standing order,” a creditors' committee is said to “stand in the debtor's shoes” because it has permission to litigate certain claims belonging to the debtor that arose before bankruptcy. However, for parties whose cases advance to discovery, such a standing order may cause issues by leaving undecided the allocation of attorney-client privilege and work product protection between the debtor and committee.
Once again a company has felt the pain that comes when it is caught violating an agreement with the Department of Justice. After taking a tongue lashing from a federal judge for repeatedly violating the law, Carnival Corp. executives have until autumn to hire a chief compliance officer and begin meaningful compliance reforms at the world's largest cruise line.
The amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in 2015 intended to clarify some of the ambiguities that caused inconsistent rulings in e-discovery matters. One such amendment was to Rule 37(e), which seemed to indicate that courts would not levee punitive sanctions without establishing “intent to deprive.” Despite this language, though, courts continue rely on their inherent authority to issue sanctions, meaning organizations must take their preservation obligations seriously.
The New York City Landmarks Preservation Law authorizes the Landmarks Preservation Commission (LPC) to designate interior landmarks as well as exterior landmarks. An interior site is eligible for designation only if the public has access to the site, but once the LPC has designated the interior landmark, can the LPC authorize its owner to close the landmark to public access?
When negotiating permitted-use clauses under retail leases, landlords attempt to achieve the most comprehensive limitations possible so as to avoid conflicts with other tenants' leases and violations of exclusive-use clauses that are maintained by other tenants in the retail facility. Tenants, however, should be very careful to incorporate a certain degree of flexibility and adaptability into their leases' permitted-use clauses to take into account an evolving landscape.
Since the U.S. Supreme Court decided Mayo and Myriad, the Federal Circuit has expanded the holdings and invalidated more patents directed to biological discoveries. If the newly discovered correlations and properties of what is found in nature cannot be patented, what strategies for protection are left for companies doing biological research?
