Features
The Marital Residence
In matrimonial litigation the marital residence often constitutes the parties' most valuable asset. Equitable distribution of this asset can involve issues that may or may not have been anticipated at the outset of the litigation. Within the process of accomplishing an equitable division of the home are considerations of separate property credits, capital gains taxes, expenses relating to the residence and timing of valuation of the home. In this month's issue, we discuss separate property credits.
Features
Drug & Device News
The latest happenings for your review.
Features
Litigation
Recent rulings of interest to you and your practice.
Features
Cooperatives & Condominiums
In-depth analysis of recent rulings.
Features
Index
Everything contained in this issue, in an easy-to-read format.
Features
How to Manage Your Litigation Costs
This is the first in a series of articles discussing how in-house counsel can better manage litigation matters.
Features
The 'Unindicted Co-Conspirator'
The criminal justice process can be arcane, but one term is recognizable to the public. An indictment is a formal accusation by a grand jury that an indicted individual has committed a crime. While damning, the indicted defendant nonetheless has the constitutional right to say to the government, 'Prove it,' and, if the government fails, to be cleared of all criminal wrongdoing. Unlike the defendant who has a right to defend himself, the unindicted co-conspirator is not on trial but confined to a limbo in which vindication is never possible.
Features
Termination Premiums Under ERISA Held to Be Dischargeable Prepetition Claims
In a matter of first impression, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York held that the termination premiums assessed against Oneida Ltd. ('Oneida') as a result of the termination of one of Oneida's pension plans during its Chapter 11 case were prepetition 'claims' (as defined in ' 101(5) of title 11 of the United States Code (the 'Bankruptcy Code')) that were discharged under Oneida's confirmed plan of reorganization.
Need Help?
- Prefer an IP authenticated environment? Request a transition or call 800-756-8993.
- Need other assistance? email Customer Service or call 1-877-256-2472.
MOST POPULAR STORIES
- Use of Deferred Prosecution Agreements In White Collar InvestigationsThis article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.Read More ›
- The DOJ's Corporate Enforcement Policy: One Year LaterThe 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.Read More ›
- Surveys in Patent Infringement Litigation: The Next FrontierMost experienced intellectual property attorneys understand the significant role surveys play in trademark infringement and other Lanham Act cases, but relatively few are likely to have considered the use of such research in patent infringement matters. That could soon change in light of the recent admission of a survey into evidence in <i>Applera Corporation, et al. v. MJ Research, Inc., et al.</i>, No. 3:98cv1201 (D. Conn. Aug. 26, 2005). The survey evidence, which showed that 96% of the defendant's customers used its products to perform a patented process, was admitted as evidence in support of a claim of inducement to infringe. The court admitted the survey into evidence over various objections by the defendant, who had argued that the inducement claim could not be proven without the survey.Read More ›
- The DOJ's New Parameters for Evaluating Corporate Compliance ProgramsThe parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.Read More ›
- In the SpotlightOn May 9, 2003, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Massachusetts announced that Bayer Corporation, the pharmaceutical manufacturer, had been sentenced and ordered to pay a criminal fine of $5,590,800 stemming from its earlier plea of guilty to violating the Federal Prescription Drug Marketing Act by failing to list with the FDA its drug product, Cipro, that was privately labeled for an HMO. Such listing is required under the federal Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act. The Federal Prescription Drug Marketing Act, Pub. L. 100-293, enacted on April 22, 1988, as modified on August 26, 1992 by the Prescription Drug Amendments (PDA) Pub. L. 102-353, 106 Stat. 941, amended sections 301, 303, 503, and 801 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, codified at 21 U.S.C. '' 331, 333, 353, 381, to establish requirements for distributing prescription drug samples.Read More ›
