Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Features
Recent rulings you need to know.
Last month's issue analyzed the Court of Appeals' determination in <i>Thornton v. Baron</i>, invalidating the illusory tenancies. This month, we focus on the court's computation of rent due.
Features
Dismissal of jury's insider trading guilty verdict upheld: A divided Second Circuit has upheld the dismissal of a guilty verdict against a computer company…
These relatively simple questions are not always easy to answer, particularly when they pertain to pay issues under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). On Nov. 8, 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court provided some needed clarification in two consolidated cases ' IBP, Inc. v. Alvarez and Tum v. Barber Foods, Inc.
The Seventh Circuit has reaffirmed a competitor's right to copy and use unprotected product designs ' and clarified the ability to do so without violating the Lanham Act for "passing off" or trade dress infringement. <i>Bretford Mfg., Inc. v. Smith System Mfg., Corp.</i> This article examines the legal precedent behind the right to copy and use unprotected product designs in the context of this case, and provide analysis of its impact.
Features
Ironically, the SEC and the Department of Justice, which enforce SOX's criminal provisions, appear ready to burden the traditional ethical obligations of corporate legal counselors to keep client communications confidential in an effort to police the integrity and ethics of other corporate gatekeepers. To that end, the SEC imposes certain reporting requirements on corporate counselors, attempts to preempt state ethics rules, and DOJ prosecutors routinely pressure "target" corporations to waive the attorney-client privilege to obtain "cooperation" points. Corporate counselors must be aware of those initiatives to properly balance their competing obligations.
Features
It is a matter of significant controversy and a subject of much litigation whether the U.S. Supreme Court's Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) jurisprudence enforcing pre-dispute arbitration agreements, regardless of whether the underlying dispute derives from contract, statute or public policy, extends to situations where individuals seek to bring class claims on behalf of large groups either in court or before the arbitral tribunal. Mostly, the decisions have supported this extension, provided the arbitration agreement authorizes the decision-maker to apply statutory as well as contract law and to award statutory remedies for proven violations. Because plaintiffs' lawyers have responded to these developments by bringing class claims in arbitration, despite silence in the underlying agreement whether the arbitrator possesses "class certification" authority, a number of companies have inserted express class action waivers in their arbitration programs. A recent decision of the California Supreme Court places in question the legal effectiveness of this response, at least in that state and for "consumer"-type claims.
