Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
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.
Features
The Supreme Court of California determined in January that the state Mobilehome Residency Law (MRL), codified at Civ. Code, ' 798 <i>et seq.</i>, does not preempt local rent control ordinances that allow mobilehome park owners to separately charge park residents for property taxes imposed on park land. <i>Cacho v. Boudreau</i>, 40 Cal.4th 341 (Cal.,1/11/2007) (Kennard, J.). The opinion clarified an apparent conflict between the MRL and the mobilehome rent control law then in force in the City of Chula Vista ' a local law similar to many rent control ordinances throughout the State. The decision also resolved a split among the Appellate Divisions as to which items may be considered components of 'rent' for which landlords may raise monthly rents without violating the anti-gouging provision of the MRL.
Features
Although the marital exception to rape and forcible sodomy remained on the legislative books, the New York Court of Appeals in People v. Liberta, 64 NY2d 152 (1984), held that the exception ' which had previously shielded men from criminal liability for raping their wives ' was unconstitutional. It was a hard-won victory at the time for victims of such abuse and the feminist advocates behind them, but the extent of the protection the decision offered was limited; it applied only to rape and not to other sexual contacts that would be treated as crimes if perpetrated by anyone other than the victim's husband.