Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Features
When I entered law practice in 1971, it was common in corporate criminal investigations for a single law firm to represent the target corporation and all its relevant employees. They hung together lest they hang separately. Over time, practice changed, and such joint-representation arrangements mostly disappeared. The old paradigm was succeeded by a new one, which recognized the separate interests of the corporation and each of its relevant employees, but also provided a large measure of mutual support and good will on the defense side. This paradigm, too, has been attacked by prosecutors and now has largely disappeared in major federal and some state investigations. It has been succeeded by a new, far harsher paradigm.
Features
How much freedom does a party have to tell its service provider not to use a given employee to provide the services? Although the freedom to contract (or not contract) might suggest that this liberty is unfettered, a recent decision by the Second District Appellate Court of Illinois suggests that the answer is not so clear.
Information about upcoming seminars and conferences.
Features
Highlights of the latest product liability cases from around the country.
Features
There is a wealth of information about punitive damages on the Internet, including the Web sites of various organizations and law schools, as well as blogs. Here is a sample of what's available.
As part of the Food and Drug Administration's ("FDA") ongoing and comprehensive efforts to minimize risks while preserving the benefits of medical products, the FDA recently released three industry guidance documents on risk management strategies. These final guidance documents, applicable to various stages of drug and biological product development, will assist manufacturers in developing and improving methods to assess and monitor the risks associated with drugs and biologics. The risk minimization action plan is one of these initiatives that promises to further tip the balance of the risk-benefit profile of drugs and devices.
The first part of this article discussed traditional criteria for successor liability and the expanded theory of successor liability provided by the continuity of enterprise exception. The conclusion continues the discussion of expanded successor liability law pursuant to the product line exception.
In June 2005, in two companion decisions, the California Supreme Court for the first time interpreted a line of recent, landmark U.S. Supreme Court opinions on punitive damages. In so doing, the California Supreme Court attempted to bring clarity to the politically charged and legally nettlesome issue of when punitive damage awards become constitutionally excessive. However, the court's decisions may raise more questions than they answer. Instead of setting a bright-line rule for lower courts and litigants to follow (such as a fixed ratio of punitive damages to compensatory damages beyond which punitive damages must not go — something some courts of appeal attempted to do in response to the high court's landmark opinions), the court in <i>Lionel Simon v. San Paolo U.S. Holding Co., Inc.</i> No. S121723 (June 16, 2005) ("<i>Simon</i>"), and <i>Greg Johnson, et al., v. Ford Motor Company,</i> No. S121933 (June 16, 2005) ("<i>Johnson</i>"), elected to constrain, but fundamentally preserve, the possibility of truly punishing punitive damage awards.
The battle for class certification makes or breaks many lawsuits. Often, the certification decision hinges on whether there are questions of law or fact common to the class and whether the claims and defenses of the representative parties are typical of those of the class as a whole. Because the defense has no opportunity to question the class members themselves and to compare the claims and defenses of the named plaintiffs with those of the absent class members, it faces a big problem overcoming class certification: How is a defendant to know, let alone prove to the court: 1) that the claims of the class as a whole are not common and 2) that the claims of the named plaintiffs are sufficiently dissimilar to those of the class. In order to provide the court with record evidence on which it can base a decision as to whether individual or common issues predominate, parties should be permitted to engage in discovery of absent class members for class certification purposes.
