California's Second District Court of Appeal recently established a bright-line rule when it held that a lawyer's membership in the ADR provider deciding his case must be disclosed to the other side.
The relationship between a primary and excess insurance carrier within the context of a catastrophic medical malpractice litigation is fraught with possible pitfalls.
While there have been high-profile setbacks to be sure, there is little reason to expect FCPA enforcement actions ' characterized by some as a tool in the war on terror ' to decline.
The Department of Justice (DOJ) and Securities Exchange Commission's (SEC) Guide to the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) demonstrates, if there were any doubt, the importance of timely and effective FCPA remediation.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) provides some protection to drug companies regarding adverse event reports by allowing a disclaimer statement about liability. However, this is not a blanket defense against other potential liability exposure.
If district courts must rule conclusively whether expert testimony will be admissible at trial before making a Rule 23 determination, parties may have to engage in considerable discovery before class certifications can be made.
Whether a case is litigated in federal court rather than state court can have a huge impact on both litigation costs and the end result. Some proposals for federal jurisdiction reform.
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
The owner of a commercially successful patent may have competing desires. On one hand, the patent owner wants to protect the patent and secure its maximum benefit; on the other hand, the patent owner wants to avoid enforcement litigation with competitors because it is expensive and puts the patent at risk.
The doctrine of equivalents is a rule of equity adopted more than 150 years ago by the U.S. Supreme Court. Prosecution history estoppel is a rule of equity that controls access to the doctrine. In May 2002, the Court was called upon to revisit the doctrine and the estoppel rule in <i>Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co. Ltd.</i> Ultimately the Court reaffirmed the doctrine and expanded the estoppel rule, but not without inciting heated debate over the Court's rationale — especially since it included a new and controversial foreseeability test in its analysis for estoppel.
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.
