Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Features
Until recently, U.S. software companies comfortably operated under the assumption that selling software that was copied from a "golden master" CD outside of the United States, and which was sold only to customers outside of the United States, did not infringe U.S. patents. Recent developments in the law have destroyed that comfort and made clear that infringement liability may very well lie for exactly those types of foreign sales.
Highlights of the latest product liability cases from around the country.
If you're looking for articles pertaining to product liability litigation, the Rand Institute for Civil Justice ("ICJ") has a Web site that lists and summarizes a variety of articles that are available for purchase or for free. Go to <i>www.rand.org/icj/pubs</i> and click on "Product Liability."
Until 1997, when the Supreme Court decided <i>General Electric v. Joiner</i>, 522 U.S. 136, (1997), I had never heard of the term <i>ipse dixit</i>. Now, almost every month I read a decision in which that phrase appears. <i>Ipse</i>, in Latin, is "he himself"; <i>dixit</i>, "to say." Its dictionary meaning is "an unsupported assertion, usually by a person of standing."
Features
This month's installment discusses the final three habits of highly effective risk management programs.
Among the myriad acquisitions, mergers, assets sales and other transactions that are consummated every day by companies engaged in the business of manufacturing, distributing or selling products, there is hardly a transaction imaginable that does not somehow implicate a precedent corporate entity. A corporation that "succeeds" to another company's operations may be deemed responsible for the latter's liabilities, including claims with respect to products manufactured, sold or distributed before the acquisition. The resulting liability, if visited upon a successor, may subject it to exposure far beyond anything ever contemplated at the time of the transaction ' and in amounts that far exceed the value of the deal or the worth of the entire company.
When a patient files a lawsuit against a drug or medical device company, it is typically based on product liability allegations that the pharmaceutical product caused physical injury. In recent years, however, patients are asserting violations of state consumer fraud or unfair trade practices acts in addition to product liability claims. The benefit of doing so is clear. These claims, if successful, allow enhanced recovery of treble damages, attorneys' fees, court costs and fees.
Features
On April 27, 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 7-to-2 decision, handed supporters of federal pre-emption a narrow victory in <i>Bates v. Dow Agrosciences LLC</i>, __U.S.__, 125 S.Ct. 1788, __L.Ed.2d__ (2005). In <i>Bates</i>, the majority's decision endorsed the principal that state law fraud and failure-to-warn claims may be pre-empted in appropriate circumstances under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act ("FIFRA" or "Act"), 7 U.S.C. §136 <i>et seq</i>. The <i>Bates</i> majority held that where such state law claims impose requirements on an insecticide manufacturer that are "in addition to or different from" labeling or packaging requirements under FIFRA, the claims will be barred by FIFRA's pre-emption provision, 7 U.S.C. §136v(b).
Highlights of the latest equipment leasing news from around the country.
Financing deals have become increasingly complicated as parties attempt to raise capital and take advantage of accounting and tax incentives. These transactions often face scrutiny when one party files for bankruptcy. During a Chapter 11 reorganization, a debtor must use all tools at its disposal to best restructure its obligations. In contrast, a creditor must work to ensure it receives the best possible return. The term "lease" is not defined in the Bankruptcy Code. Due to this lack of a clear definition, creditors and debtors will often attempt to recharacterize agreements between the parties. In this context, a secured creditor or debtor may argue that a "lease" is actually a disguised secured financing. In the converse, a party could also argue a secured financing is actually a "true lease." This is due to the Bankruptcy Code's different treatment of secured debt and leases. Depending on the factual scenario, this differing treatment could significantly change the parties' obligations.