Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Features
In many kinds of litigation, document production is a dirty term. Even when done carefully, responsibly, and well by both sides, the process of producing documents (and, for the other side, the process of dealing with documents that have been produced) is tedious, thankless, and consumes a remarkable amount of resources. Things become much worse when the parties clash over what should be produced and how, and worse still when the party receiving the documents is more interested in using the discovery process to inflict pain or to generate a record for sanctions motion practice than he is in getting documents to help him prepare his case.
Product liability trials are difficult for juries. They are long. They involve highly technical subjects, the testimony of conflicting "experts," and what may or may not be scientific evidence. Jurors may be asked to consider and decide the feasibility of two or more alternative designs for a product with which they are unfamiliar.
Ordinarily, the focus in a product liability case is on the defendant-manufacturer's duty to design and manufacture a safe and useful product and to warn adequately of any risks associated with its use. But an interesting and unexpected battleground can arise from a tag-a-along consumer protection claim. Here is the scenario: Plaintiff, in an individual action, sues defendant-manufacturer for injuries allegedly sustained in connection with the use of defendant's product. Plaintiff sues under traditional product liability theories as well as under the state's consumer protection statute, which proscribes deceptive and misleading trade practices. In particular, plaintiff alleges a consumer fraud has occurred because she has been injured by a product that, she claims, had been sold in connection with deceptive sales practices; in this case, certain allegedly false or misleading advertisements.
Reviews of key cases of interest to your practice.
Features
The onslaught of guilty pleas in post-Enron financial fraud cases has created new challenges for defense attorneys in the parallel civil litigation that inevitably accompanies criminal charges. Attorneys for the civil plaintiffs are quick to strike as soon as the guilty pleas are disclosed, demanding that the pleading defendant provide the documents and testimony previously denied to them by the invocation of the Fifth Amendment, and seeking to collect a prompt judgment.
In last month's article, we pointed out that successful enforcement efforts against investment banks have emboldened state and federal authorities to target mutual funds - a fact that has been borne out in the national press over the past few weeks. More precisely, the funds' investment advisers are the targets. We believe regulators' inquiries will most likely examine two general categories, fund administration and marketing. Last month's article discussed fund administration; the following concentrates on trade allocations, and advertising and marketing.
Features
Mention HIPAA (the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act) to a typical CEO, and boredom sets in. Many corporate leaders remain unaware of the risks of HIPAA non-compliance, but the Act includes a criminal statute that creates vast potential exposure for health care providers and other players in the health care "data trade."
Features
Cases of importance to your practice.
A comprehensive list of key cases discussed in this issue.