Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
WASHINGTON, DC ' The controversy over whether developers and distributors of peer-to-peer file-sharing software should be found liable for contributory and vicarious copyright infringement has been described as the most important copyright case for the entertainment industry in two decades ' or as an issue that Congress ultimately will decide. (That the underlying unlicensed downloading and uploading of entertainment content by consumers is direct infringement has already been made clear by courts.) To this observer in the court's press section, questioning by the U.S. Supreme Court justices during the recent oral arguments in what is known as the <i>Grokster</i> case demonstrated no clear consensus among the justices.
Recent rulings of importance to you and your practice.
Features
Not long ago there was a movement afoot to turn co-ops into condominiums due to the supposed benefits they offered, including the lessened economic interdependence resulting from absence of any blanket mortgage or real estate tax lien. Although such transformations never gained traction, in recent years condominiums have become market darlings (accounting for nearly all new construction and conversions), most notably because of their perceived let-freedom-reign philosophy, particularly the ability of owners to buy, sell, and lease without board intervention. Yet such relative independence may soon be more illusory than real as condo boards seek to assume powers traditionally reserved for their co-op brethren, and unit owners find themselves lacking legal protections available to shareholders.
Features
Highlights of the latest insurance cases from around the country.
Features
In the few short years since <i>Fuller-Austin</i> was decided, the use of "prepack" bankruptcies has become a favored approach to resolving asbestos liabilities, often with the threat of a "<i>Fuller-Austin</i> result" as a hammer over the insurers asked to pick up the tab. Here's the drill: A policyholder uses section 524(g) of the Bankruptcy Code to channel its present and future asbestos liabilities to a trust; under policyholder's reorganization plan, the trust is funded in significant part with insurance rights; the insurers cannot object to the plan because it is said not to affect their interests; yet plan confirmation triggers coverage for the entire liability in an amount (often a nine or 10 digit amount) to be determined at a later date. <i>See Fuller-Austin Insulation Co.</i>, 2002 WL 31005090 (Cal. Sup. Ct. Aug. 6, 2002) (appeal pending). The pressure this <i>Fuller-Austin</i> play puts on insurers leads many to settle their coverage obligations ' often a rational response to a high-stakes game in which insurers have few sources of leverage.
Insurers considering whether to bring suit for restitution under the New Jersey Insurance Fraud Prevention Act, N.J.S.A. 17:33A-1 <i>et seq.</i>, against suspected fraudulent claimants must deal with a problem confronting all potential plaintiffs: the likelihood that a favorable judgment against the claimant may never be collected.
