LJN Newsletters

  • Index

    Everything in this issue, in an easy-to-follow format.

    November 29, 2005ALM Staff | Law Journal Newsletters |

  • Development

    Rulings of interest.

    November 29, 2005ALM Staff | Law Journal Newsletters |

  • Landlord & Tenant

    Analysis of high-profile cases.

    November 29, 2005ALM Staff | Law Journal Newsletters |

  • Real Property Law

    In-depth analysis of recent cases.

    November 29, 2005ALM Staff | Law Journal Newsletters |

  • Fraudulent Rent Registrations

    Last month's issue analyzed the Court of Appeals' determination in Thornton v. Baron, invalidating the illusory tenancies. This month, we focus on the court's computation of rent due.

    November 29, 2005Darryl M. Vernon

  • Hotline

    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…

    November 29, 2005ALM Staff | Law Journal Newsletters |

  • When Does A Workday Begin? When Does It End?

    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.

    November 29, 2005Robert B. Cottington

  • The Right To Copy ' and Use ' Unprotected Product Designs Is Alive And Well

    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. Bretford Mfg., Inc. v. Smith System Mfg., Corp. 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.

    November 29, 2005Thomas J. Wimbiscus, Alejandro Menchaca and Dennis P. Hackett

  • Sarbanes-Oxley Versus The Attorney-Client Privilege

    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.

    November 29, 2005Steve Wheeless