Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Features
Now, in the Age of e-Commerce, the fastest way to find a lawyer is to Google one, or to use online lawyer-finder tools such as those that companies like ALM, the owner of e-Commerce Law & Strategy, offer. With that change has come a new challenge for enterprising attorneys: How to get their names to the top of the 5.76 million spewed back when a user queries for, say, "New Jersey divorce lawyers." <br>The answer is sponsored links: paying Google or Yahoo!, or other Web search engines, for prominent placement when a user types in a specific term. It's an auction-like system in which the most aggressive advertisers can claw their way to the top, and reap the benefits of being there.
Business lawyers ' even tech lawyers ' lead unexciting lives. Reading and writing contracts keeps them stuck in front of a computer or a Blackberry. Even when they work from such "exotic" locations as a coffee shop or an airport lounge, they can't get away from words on a screen. <br>But sometimes, contract review requires that lawyers have the detective skills of a Sherlock Holmes, when they have to read the parts of a contract that aren't even there.
They're out there and they're armed. They're armed with knowledge of the vulnerabilities of your law firm's IT systems that could bring operations to a grinding halt or expose the firm to liability. They know where confidential information is kept, which data is essential and they already have access to the network. Who are they? They're not hackers bent on destruction who launch anonymous attacks on e-commerce operations and your own firm from afar. They're your colleagues.
The estimated total net value of retail e-commerce sales in the third quarter was $22.3 billion, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. That figure, which accounts for 2.3% of all retail sales, is about $1 billion more than the estimated retail e-commerce activity in the second quarter.
Features
If e-mail is ubiquitous in our lives, why don't more people follow some general, common-sense guidelines for composing, addressing and sending e-mails? This isn't a column on security; it's a look at some fundamental concepts that will keep you savvy about your e-mail habits, whether you run or advise an e-commerce enterprise, or plan to or not ' it's just an everyday, common-sense approach anyone can employ.
Recent cases in e-commerce law and in the e-commerce industry.
Features
In <i>Boghos v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's of London</i>, 30 Cal. Rptr. 3d 787, 115 P.3d 68 (July 18, 2005), the California Supreme Court held that a disability insurance policy's arbitration and service of suit clauses did not conflict and that the arbitration clause was therefore enforceable. The court in <i>Boghos</i> also concluded that the policy's stipulation that the insured share arbitration costs with the insurer did not render the arbitration clause unenforceable. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeal and remanded the case to the trial court.
In its recent decision in <i>Riverwood International Corp. v. Employers Insurance of Wausau</i>, No. 04-30608, 2005 WL 1840057 (5th Cir. Aug. 4, 2005), the Fifth Circuit affirmed an award of summary judgment in favor of an insurer, holding that asbestos-related injury is not a "bodily injury by accident."
Features
Recently, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, in In re Tower Air, Inc., 416 F.3d 229 (3rd Cir. 2005), queried: 'How far will the federal courthouse door swing open for a direct suit against corporate directors and officers for Breaches of Fiduciary Duties?' In firmly answering this question, the Third Circuit has widened the door for bankruptcy trustees and creditors' committees, by making it easier, at the pleading stage, to assert a claim for breach of fiduciary duty in federal court.
In an article in last month's issue, we questioned the desirability of equitably subordinating or disallowing claims transferred post-petition, and explored the implications that a decision pending in the Enron bankruptcy court might have on distressed debt markets. Now, in an expansively reasoned opinion, the Enron court partially answered those questions. The court denied a motion to dismiss certain counts seeking to equitably subordinate certain bank claims in the hands of post-petition assignees on the basis of allegedly inequitable prepetition conduct engaged in by Enron's pre-petition lenders.
