Part One of a Two-Part Article Despite the steady growth of global AI adoption, there is no comprehensive federal legislation on AI in the United States. Instead, the U.S. has a patchwork of various current and proposed AI regulatory frameworks. It is critical for organizations looking to harness this novel technology to understand these frameworks and to prepare to operate in compliance with them.
Privacy laws and enforcement are causing big changes to global commerce and have now arrived at our doorstep. The million dollar questions are how this will affect our businesses and what, if anything, do we need to do about it?
The lack of answers from the Supreme Court regarding the scope of Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act comes at a time when legal questions around generative AI are mushrooming.
In recent years, the ITC has issued more General Exclusion Orders (GEOs) than in the past. For importers of products potentially implicated by a requested GEO, the GEO can be a major threat even if the importer is not a respondent in the case.
In recent years, the ITC has issued more General Exclusion Orders (GEOs) than in the past. For IP owners facing infringing imported products from numerous elusive sources, a GEO can be a powerful remedy to tackle all infringing products at once.
Some markets allow for the sale of a future contract for tickets that have not gone on sale as yet (i.e., "speculative ticketing"). The future contract, like an option or a commodities future, allows someone to purchase the right to buy a ticket once the tickets are offered for sale. This seems to implicate securities law issues, broker-dealer regulations and potentially the general solicitation rule.
Part Three of a Three-Part Article The first two installments exposited Janus Capital Group, Inc. v. First Derivative Traders and Lorenzo v. S.E.C., both essential to understanding S.E.C. v. Rio Tinto, the Second Circuit's most recent holding regarding Rule 10b-5 "scheme" liability. Now we examine how the "Mother Court" of federal securities law has tended to that branch of the mighty judicial oak rooted in that venerable regulation.
It has been common knowledge to criminal practitioners for years that a criminal defendant's sentence for a crime which they have been convicted can be increased based on consideration of conduct that the jury acquitted. This outcome can make a partial acquittal in federal court into a pyrrhic victory.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." The Supreme Court has applied this maxim to the securities laws, holding in Omnicare v. Laborers District Council , that while statements of opinion generally are not actionable, there are some narrow circumstances in which such statements entail or imply false or misleading assertions of fact.
Part Two of a Three-Part Article This three-part series discusses the Second Circuit's recent Securities law landmark case, S.E.C. v. Rio Tinto. However, in order to discuss Rio Tinto, it is important to first understand the Supreme Court landmark cases upon which Rio Tinto is based: Janus Capital Group, Inc. v. First Derivative Trader, discussed in the first installment, and S.E.C v. Lorenzo, discussed here.
