Account

Sign in to access your account and subscription

LJN Newsletters

  • 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.

    January 03, 2006Lorelei Laird
  • 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.

    January 03, 2006Michael Lear-Olimpi
  • 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.

    January 03, 2006Brett Burney
  • Recent cases in e-commerce law and in the e-commerce industry.

    January 03, 2006Julian S. Millstein, Edward A. Pisacreta and Jeffrey D. Neuburger
  • In Boghos v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's of London, 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 Boghos 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.

    January 03, 2006Lewis E. Hassett and Matthew A. Barrett
  • In its recent decision in Riverwood International Corp. v. Employers Insurance of Wausau, 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."

    January 03, 2006Paul Kalish
  • 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.

    January 03, 2006Thomas J. Fleming and Adam H. Friedman
  • 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.

    January 03, 2006Dion W. Hayes and Aaron G. McCollough
  • Two recent bankruptcy opinions out of the Delaware Court, IT Litigation Trust v. D'Aniella, et al. (In re: IT Group, Inc., et al.), and Shandler v. DLJ Merchant Banking, Inc., et al. (In re Insilco Technologies, Inc.), each of which addresses post-confirmation bankruptcy court subject matter jurisdiction over state law causes of action, have potentially significant implications on both litigation in the Delaware Bankruptcy Court and plan structure for Chapter 11 debtors.

    January 03, 2006Daniel J. DeFranceschi, Russell C. Silberglied and Chun I. Jang
  • It looks like James Sprayregen and his team at Kirkland & Ellis have brought United Airlines to the verge of a successful exit from Chapter 11. That is all the more remarkable because a year ago, they seemed nowhere close. United was struggling with a host of problems, not the least the one that concerned me, the retention of its fleet of aircraft. The creditors who controlled those aircraft had the leverage of ' 1110 of the Bankruptcy Code that allowed them to repossess the planes as if the bankruptcy did not even exist. When some of those creditors attempted to exercise the right, however, the bankruptcy court -- notwithstanding ' 1110 -- enjoined them. And it did so on a theory that seemed to contradict the essential idea that bankruptcy is a procedure for the collective negotiation and resolution of creditors' claims: by coordinating their bargaining, United successfully argued, the aircraft creditors were guilty of an unlawful conspiracy in restraint of trade. The ensuing litigation finally established that United was wrong: There are no qualifications to ' 1110's absolute protection of aircraft creditors' rights, and coordinated bargaining by creditors of a common debtor in bankruptcy is permitted under the antitrust laws. But, it took not one, but two opinions of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals to establish those principles.

    January 03, 2006Ronald Barliant