Features
Aggregate Limits: Addressing Arguments Advanced by Policyholders in Asbestos Claims
Now entering its third decade, asbestos exposures threaten the financial stability of numerous commercial entities. Asbestos manufacturers, distributors and installers have been forced to declare bankruptcy because of these exposures. RAND Institute for Civil Justice, "Asbestos Litigation in the U.S.A.: A New Look at an Old Issue" (Aug. 2001). Even companies with only a peripheral connection to asbestos — <i>eg</i>, car manufacturers that used asbestos-lined brakes — have been sued. Asbestos claimants continue to aggressively pursue any entity that had any involvement with asbestos. Indeed, the backlog of asbestos suits in the federal and state courts doubled from about 100,000 in 1990 to 200,000 in 1999. Asbestos Compensation Act of 2000, H.R. Rep. No. 106-782, at 18 (2000). Quite simply, absent federal legislative relief, asbestos cases will continue to clog U.S. courts. Moreover, asbestos litigation has and will continue to bog down a large segment of the U.S. economy. Studies are now projecting that asbestos lawsuits will continue until at least 2030.
Features
Case Briefs
Highlights of the latest insurance cases from across the country.
Features
Use and Misuse of Insurance Experts: Surviving the Admissibility Challenge
The use of expert testimony has dramatically increased over the past two decades, and insurance litigation has not been an exception. Experts have long been used in insurance cases to help the jury determine the facts surrounding the loss, such as in arson cases. But use of experts specializing in the field of insurance itself is becoming commonplace, as are challenges to the admissibility of their testimony.
Excuses, Excuses: FTC's Top Franchise Enforcer Has Heard It All
Steven Toporoff is the Franchise Program Coordinator at the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), and one of the key people working on Franchise Rule enforcement. At the International Franchise Association (IFA) Legal Symposium in May 2003, Mr. Toporoff provided an update on federal regulatory developments and shared insights about how franchise enforcers go about their work. He also compiled the following list of excuses that he and fellow examiners hear from franchisors and their legal representatives. As Mr. Toporoff observed, "franchise attorneys should know better.
Features
Court Watch
Highlights of the latest franchising cases from across the country.
Love Thy Canadian Neighbor: Ontario Court of Appeal Addresses Franchisor's Duty of Good Faith Part Two of a Two-Part Series
The first installment of this series dealt principally with one of the issues before the Ontario Court of Appeal in <i>Shelanu v. Print Three</i>; namely, the unsuccessful attempt of the franchisor to exclude from enforceability an oral agreement made subsequent to a franchise agreement containing a comprehensive "entire agreement" clause. The other principal issue before the court was whether there was, at common law, a duty of good faith owed by a franchisor to its franchisee.
News Briefs
Highlights of the latest franchising news from across the country.
What's in a Name? Name Disputes in the Geographical Expansion of Franchises
The goal of most franchised businesses is to achieve household name recognition on a nationwide basis. Achieving that goal through nationwide expansion, however, is easier said than done. Expansion raises a number of significant issues, not the least of which is whether the name of the franchised concept is identical or confusingly similar to the name of a similar business in the geographic areas under consideration and/or in other remote areas where the franchisor is not currently operating, but may be so doing in the future.
Features
In The Marketplace
Highlights of the latest equipment leasing news from around the country.
A Tale of Two Cases: Mobile Goods Require Uniformity of State Statutes
Nationwide uniformity of commercial laws has always been a fundamental goal of the drafters of Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code. One area, though, that has continually eluded standardization is perfection of liens on mobile goods. Financiers of mobile goods, including vehicles, vessels, trailer homes and modular offices, must grapple with arcane certificate of title statutes that vary widely from state to state. Other state statutes that regulate title and lien interests in mobile goods can become a trap for the unwary. The nature of mobile goods makes uniformity among state statutes a compelling issue for financiers.
Need Help?
- Prefer an IP authenticated environment? Request a transition or call 800-756-8993.
- Need other assistance? email Customer Service or call 1-877-256-2472.
MOST POPULAR STORIES
- The DOJ's Corporate Enforcement Policy: One Year LaterThe DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.Read More ›
- Use of Deferred Prosecution Agreements In White Collar InvestigationsThis article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.Read More ›
- The Roadmap of Litigation AnalyticsLitigation analytics can be considered a roadmap of sorts — an important guide to ensure the legal professional arrives at the correct litigation strategy or business plan. However, like roadmaps, litigation analytics will only be useful if it's based on data that is complete and accurate.Read More ›
- The DOJ's New Parameters for Evaluating Corporate Compliance ProgramsThe parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.Read More ›
- Understanding the Potential Pitfalls Arising From Participation in Standards BodiesChances are that if your company is involved in research and development of new technology there is a standards setting organization exploring the potential standardization of such technology. While there are clear benefits to participation in standards organizations — keeping abreast of industry developments, targeting product development toward standard compliant products, steering research and intellectual property protection into potential areas of future standardization — such participation does not come without certain risks. Whether you are in-house counsel or outside counsel, you may be called upon to advise participants in standard-setting bodies about intellectual property issues or to participate yourself. You may also be asked to review patent policy of the standard-setting body that sets forth the disclosure and notification requirements with respect to patents for that organization. Here are some potential patent pitfalls that can catch the unwary off-guard.Read More ›
