Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
As with many things in law, there is a mental checklist. When a client calls seeking advice regarding a new product liability lawsuit, you run through the product liability checklist. What is the product? What is the product used for? What warnings accompanied the product? When was the product manufactured? How did the product allegedly cause injury?
The $10.1 billion judgment entered against Philip Morris in an Illinois state court in 2003 received national attention, as did the reversal of that judgment in December 2005. <i>Price v. Philip Morris Inc.</i>, No. 00-L-112 (Ill. Cir. Ct. March 21, 2003), <i>rev'd</i>, No. 96236 (Ill. Sup. Ct. Dec. 15, 2005). Less well known, however, is the theory under which the plaintiffs won their judgment at trial. Unlike the plaintiffs in some other large tobacco verdicts, the plaintiffs in Price did not claim personal injury or wrongful death. Instead, the plaintiffs alleged that Philip Morris deceived them into believing that 'light' cigarettes were safe and caused an entire class of people to pay more for the cigarettes than they should have.
Features
Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code was enacted on Oct. 22, 2004 in an effort to regulate executive pay practices through the federal tax system. Failure to account for ' 409A's impact can seriously and adversely affect the economics of employment agreements, severance agreements, and other similar plans or other arrangements providing for a deferral of compensation. Consequently, this article details how ' 409A applies to these arrangements.
Features
On June 14 of this year, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) published for comment in the Federal Register proposed rules outlining recommended procedures for employers to follow in response to receiving Social Security mismatch notices. In promulgating the proposed rules, DHS outlined a new enforcement position ' namely, that no-match letters are relevant evidence that can put employers on notice about the immigration status of employees.
The Baby-Boomer generation entered the practice of law in unprecedented numbers, carrying lofty expectations and the collective willpower to engender unprecedented billable hours. Now this tsunami of active lawyers is moving toward senior status, phase-down and retirement. Despite the complex emotions engendered by retirement, the Baby-Boomer generation of lawyers ' and the law firms in which they have participated or help build ' <i>must</i> plan their future.
Features
Last month, we discussed HIPAA, Security Breach Notification Laws, and Safeguarding Personal Information. We conclude with a brief analysis of electronic privacy issues.
In a recent decision written by Judge Richard Posner, The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit determined that the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) may be used to bring a private cause of action against a former employee who permanently erased confidential data from his company-issued laptop before returning it to the company. <i>International Airport Centers, L.L.C. v. Citrin</i>, (Slip Op.) No. 05-1522 (7th Cir. March 8, 2006). In so holding, the Seventh Circuit has joined the current tide of federal courts that have permitted companies to use the CFAA as a means with which to defend themselves against the malicious and competitive acts of departing employees.
Features
Recent rulings of importance to you and your practice.