In last month's newsletter, we discussed the recently decided case <i>In Re K-Dur Antitrust Litigation</i>,in which the Third Circuit bucked the trend of rubber-stamping pay-for-delay patent lawsuit settlements. The discussion concludes herein.
The fastest way to a mistrial is to mention the word "insurance" in front of the jury. This maxim refers to the collateral source rule. But what about the words "public benefits" or "special education"?
Robotic technology may spawn both medical malpractice and product liability exposures, claims and lawsuits. Suits and claims may arise from one area or both. Here's what you need to know.
This article provides an in-depth discussion of the concept of common-law indemnification, using New York State to illustrate how the law has evolved in that state. Be aware that many states have their own peculiarities that must be identified at the outset of any litigation so that an appropriate strategy can be devised.
The U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision in <i>Christopher v. SmithKline Beecham Corp.</i> was not only a landmark decision for the pharmaceutical industry, but also provided important guidance for the application of the outside sales exemption in other settings
In late June, the Third Circuit considered the broad definition of "employer" under the FLSA to determine when two employers jointly employ an employee, an issue that has been arising with increasing frequency.
The U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision in <i>Christopher v. SmithKline Beecham Corp.</i> was not only a landmark decision for the pharmaceutical industry, but also provided important guidance for the application of the outside sales exemption in other settings.
The importance of immigration compliance continues to grow as more and more companies realize the negative consequences of violating the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA). This article explores how to avoid these negative consequences.
A majority of courts consider the <i>contra proferentem</i> doctrine to be a pillar of insurance law. The doctrine requires ambiguous terms in an insurance policy to be construed against the insurer and in favor of coverage for the insured. A prominent rationale behind the doctrine is that insurance policies are usually standard-form contracts drafted entirely by insurers.
Active reading comprises many daily tasks lawyers engage in, including highlighting, annotating, note taking, comparing and searching texts. It demands more than flipping or turning pages.
Like poorly-behaved school children, new technologies and intellectual property (IP) are increasingly disrupting the M&A establishment. Cybersecurity has become the latest disruptive newcomer to the M&A party.
In an effort to minimize the release of toxic gasses from cables in the event of fire, the 2002 version of the National Electric Code ("NEC"), promulgated by the National Fire Protection Association, sets forth new guidelines requiring that abandoned cables must be removed from buildings unless they are located in metal raceways or tagged "For Future Use." While the NEC is not, in itself, binding law, most jurisdictions in the United States adopt the NEC by reference in their state or local building and fire codes. Thus, noncompliance with the recent NEC guidelines will likely mean that a building is in violation of a building or fire code. If so, the building owner may also be in breach of agreements with tenants and lenders and may be jeopardizing its fire insurance coverage. Even in jurisdictions where the 2002 NEC has not been adopted, it may be argued that the guidelines represent the standard of reasonable care and could result in tort liability for the landlord if toxic gasses from abandoned cables are emitted in a fire. With these potential liabilities in mind, this article discusses: 1) how to address the abandoned wires and cables currently located within the risers, ceilings and other areas of properties, and 2) additional considerations in the placement and removal of telecommunications cables going forward.
In a recent case from the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, In re Paragon Offshore PLC, the bankruptcy court provided guidance on whether a post-plan effective date litigation trust's distributions constituted disbursements subject to the U.S. Trustee fee "tax."
