Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Features
Verdicts of interest to you and your practice.
Features
The misappropriation theory of insider trading, which was first recognized by the Supreme Court in <i>United States v. O'Hagan</i>, 521 U.S. 642 (1997), establishes liability for individuals who are not typical 'insiders' of companies and also appears to offer such defendants a specific defense to insider trading charges. The O'Hagan Court based the misappropriation theory on a duty owed by the defendant to the source of non-public material information, rather than to the shareholders of the company whose stock was being traded. Because a defendant prosecuted under the misappropriation theory had a duty only to his source, the Court explained that a defendant's disclosure to the source of information prior to trading or tipping could neutralize the acts of deception necessary for a securities fraud claim.
Features
Litigation involving asbestos, which was used for decades as a fire retardant in many products, has littered the legal landscape for years. Several major companies have over the course of the last several years filed for bankruptcy as a result of the onslaught of this litigation. Since the 1980s, many asbestos manufacturers, including Johns Manville, declared bankruptcy under the weight of liability payouts. To date, an estimated 85 companies have filed for bankruptcy claiming asbestos liabilities as the cause. A Rand Institute for Civil Justice report indicates that more than 730,000 asbestos claims have been filed since the early 1970s. Roughly 200,000 claims are still pending in state and federal courts nationwide. Estimates predict that up to 2.4 million claims still may be filed before asbestos litigation finally runs its course.
Features
An end-of-year (Nov. 29) Delaware Chancery Court decision, <i>Esopus Creek Value LP v. Hauf</i>, No. 2487-N (Del. Ch. Nov. 29, 2006), is receiving a great deal of attention from corporate transactional and corporate restructuring attorneys alike. In <i>Esopus</i>, the Delaware Chancery Court prevented a financially sound company that was prohibited by federal securities law from holding a shareholder vote, because it failed to meet its reporting requirements, from executing an agreement outside of bankruptcy to sell substantially all of its assets under Section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code without first obtaining common stockholder approval as required under Section 271(a) of the Delaware General Company Law ('DGCL').
Features
Thirty-four states have enacted security breach notification laws. And Michigan passed such a law with an effective date of July 2, 2007. These laws cover the notification that a company must make in the event of a breach of security of its system with respect to computerized personal information. How are these laws enforced in the event of a violation? These laws vary in terms of enforcement and penalties, as more particularly described below. This article provides an overview of the enforcement of these laws and describes examples of penalties.
Features
In today's litigation world, corporate counsel struggle to contain the ever-increasing costs of document discovery. The explosion of electronically stored information ('ESI') is often a huge contributor to the expense of discovery. Consultants, vendors, and e-discovery software can help bring greater efficiencies and cost-savings to the process. But while there is a dizzying array of options available, they are not all created equal. Finding the right solution requires that you do your homework.
Features
In-depth analysis of the latest verdicts.
Features
High-stakes disputes often generate hardball tactics by the parties and their attorneys. Even before the lawsuit is filed, attorneys are claiming conflicts of interest, on the part of opposing counsel, with increasing regularity and fervor. As law firms grow, clients merge or divest divisions, and attorney departures and arrivals become more common, conflicts of interest — and the possibility for disqualification motions — become a larger problem for law firms. Do such motions present a legitimate complaint mechanism for wronged clients, or simply one more arrow in the quiver of the scorched earth litigator? Regardless of what you think is the correct answer to the preceding question, disqualification motions and threats are unquestionably something that modern law firms are forced to address with increasing frequency.
Features
The most recent verdicts for you and your practice.
