Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

Columns & Departments

NJ & CT News

ALM Staff & Law Journal Newsletters

News of interest from neighboring states.

Features

New Jersey Manufacturers and Punitive Damages

Janice Inman

As discussed in Part One of this article, New Jersey's Products Liability Act (Defective Product) prevents injured plaintiffs seeking compensation from drug and device manufacturers from being awarded punitive damages. While New Jersey courts are bound by the statute's manufacturer protections, courts located in other jurisdictions have given the law mixed levels of respect.

The Calm Before The Storm Is the Time to Consider Insurance Coverage

Roberta D. Anderson

An overview of two common insurance-related considerations that may assist companies to maximize insurance recoveries in the wake of the next major storm event or other natural disaster.

Features

Post-Employment Retaliation

Adam Augustine Carter & R. Scott Oswald

This article, discusses the ways in which courts have traditionally examined post-employment retaliation claims, and provides insight into how a court (or board) is likely to rule when an employee brings claims under two of the most widely utilized whistleblower protection statutes ' the Sarbanes Oxley Act (SOX) and the False Claims Act (FCA).

Features

NLRB: McDonald's Is Joint Employer With Franchisees

Sue Reisinger

Richard Griffin Jr., general counsel of the NLRB, brought a new meaning to the phrase "Big Mac Attack" that could frighten franchisors across the country by threatening to jointly charge McDonald's USA over alleged workplace violations at its franchisees' stores. And his expansion of parent liability could spread beyond fast-food chains to other industries.

Features

Supreme Court's <i>Troice</i> Has Important Risk Management Implications

Thao Do & James Walker

On Feb. 26, the U.S. Supreme Court decided <I>Chadbourne &amp; Parke v.Troice</I>, holding that SLUSA does not preclude state law class actions where the plaintiffs allege that they purchased uncovered securities that the defendants said were backed by securities listed on a national exchange ' a misrepresentation.

Features

Proactive Trust Planning to Protect Your Clients

Martin M. Shenkman

Planning for trusts has evolved substantially over the years. "Modern" trusts are more comprehensive, flexible and protective than those that were more typically completed only a few short years ago. Understanding the characteristics of modern trust drafting is critical to achieving better protection for clients.

Columns & Departments

Court Watch

Charles G. Miller & Darryl A. Hart

Appellate Court Finds Franchisor is not Employer For FLSA Purposes <br>Second Circuit Upholds Auto Dealer Termination Without Opportunity To Cure

Cooperatives & Condominiums

ljnstaff & Law Journal Newsletters

Discussion of two recent rulings.

Features

The Settlement Privilege and the Threat of Legal Action

Stanley S. Arkin & Lisa C. Solbakken

Part One of this article considers the issue of when a threat to litigate encased by a settlement demand raises the specter of extortion, and the extent to which a potentially extortionate settlement communication should be outside the scope of the privilege.

Need Help?

  1. Prefer an IP authenticated environment? Request a transition or call 800-756-8993.
  2. Need other assistance? email Customer Service or call 1-877-256-2472.

MOST POPULAR STORIES

  • Surveys in Patent Infringement Litigation: The Next Frontier
    Most experienced intellectual property attorneys understand the significant role surveys play in trademark infringement and other Lanham Act cases, but relatively few are likely to have considered the use of such research in patent infringement matters. That could soon change in light of the recent admission of a survey into evidence in <i>Applera Corporation, et al. v. MJ Research, Inc., et al.</i>, No. 3:98cv1201 (D. Conn. Aug. 26, 2005). The survey evidence, which showed that 96% of the defendant's customers used its products to perform a patented process, was admitted as evidence in support of a claim of inducement to infringe. The court admitted the survey into evidence over various objections by the defendant, who had argued that the inducement claim could not be proven without the survey.
    Read More ›