Changes to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) now make it easy for individuals who have gained information during the discovery process in a medical malpractice suit to use that information to bring a <i>qui tam</i> action under the False Claims Act (FCA).
Any product liability litigator who prosecutes or defends class actions should be familiar with the concept of "cy pres" ' which has been the subject of significant recent attention by the courts and commentators.
Randall L. Christian, Jason H.Casell
&
Francisco T. Rivas
In pharmaceutical actions, most false claims <i>qui tam</i> actions brought by whistleblowers involve off-label promotion, kickbacks, pricing allegations, and reimbursement abuses. Although these start out as civil lawsuits, they often end with the DOJ pressing charges against the pharmaceuticals manufacturer.
A recent opinion from the Southern District of New York indicates that lawyers will typically be prohibited from bringing <i>qui tam</i> actions against their former clients. And the new Dodd-Frank regulations expressly limit when an attorney can reap a whistleblower reward.
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 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.
As consumers continue to shift purchasing and consumption habits in the aftermath of the pandemic, manufacturers are increasingly reliant on third-party logistics and warehousing to ensure their products timely reach the market.
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?
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.
