Despite the long-standing principle in Connecticut that product liability law is premised on strict liability, the state's Supreme Court is now considering whether it should abandon its strict product liability premise for design defect claims, and replace it with section 2(b) of the Restatement (Third) of Torts.
Last month, the authors described some of the challenges unique to representing a professional athlete or his or her spouse or child in family matters. Some of the issues touched upon included pre-nuptial agreements, alimony and child support. The discussion concludes herein.<p>
There is no universal definition of a franchise; a franchise in one state may not be a franchise in another and a relationship that constitutes a franchise under federal law may not meet a state law definition of a franchise, or vice-versa. As a result of this confusing statutory patchwork, the creation of accidental franchises is a common, albeit unwelcome, occurrence.
In <i>Villarreal v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.</i>, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, on rehearing en banc, reversed its prior holding that job applicants may bring "disparate impact" claims for age discrimination against potential employers, and that the EEOC may toll the statute of limitations in such cases.
Matthew Becker, Norman F. Hainer Jr.
&
David K. Ludwig
Reviews the recent Federal Circuit <i>Eli Lilly</i> case as well as district court cases that have interpreted the new standard and identifies prosecution and litigation strategies for practicing post-<i>Akamai</i><p>
“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.
Insiders (and others) in the private equity business are accustomed to seeing a good deal of discussion ' academic and trade ' on the question of the appropriate methods of valuing private equity positions and securities which are otherwise illiquid. An interesting recent decision in the Southern District has been brought to our attention. The case is <i>In Re Allied Capital Corp.</i>, CCH Fed. SEC L. Rep. 92411 (US DC, S.D.N.Y., Apr. 25, 2003). Judge Lynch's decision is well written, the Judge reviewing a motion to dismiss by a business development company, Allied Capital, against a strike suit claiming that Allied's method of valuing its portfolio failed adequately to account for i) conditions at the companies themselves and ii) market conditions. The complaint appears to be, as is often the case, slap dash, content to point out that Allied revalued some of its positions, marking them down for a variety of reasons, and the stock price went down - all this, in the view of plaintiff's counsel, amounting to violations of Rule 10b-5.
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.
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.
With trillions of dollars to keep watch over, the last thing we need is the distraction of costly litigation brought on by patent assertion entities (PAEs or "patent trolls"), companies that don't make any products but instead seek royalties by asserting their patents against those who do make products.
