Since Jan. 6, 2012, new rules have been in effect regarding removal and venue procedures for federal litigation. The impact of the Federal Courts Jurisdiction and Venue Clarification Act of 2011 in business disputes, including franchising, is gradually being felt as actions are filed in federal district courts or removed from state court to federal courts. This article outlines some of the key changes and their potential relevance for franchisors and franchisees.
Effective March 15, compliance with the DOJ's 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design (2010 Standards) was required for any alterations to existing facilities subject to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and barrier removal.
When prominent plaintiffs' lawyers applaud a "landmark change in the law," prudence calls for reflection. Such is the case with the recent New York Court of Appeals decision clarifying the scope of the Martin Act.
Just as an insured should not delay in providing notice of a claim while investigating other possible sources of coverage, an insurer should not delay in disclaiming on late notice grounds — a condition precedent to coverage — while it investigates other possible grounds for disclaimer.
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.
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
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.
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?
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.
