The Court of Appeals recently confronted a significant zoning issue: When, and on what terms, can the state or a state agency transfer to a private entity its exemption from local zoning restrictions? In <i>Matter of Crown Communication New York, Inc. v. Department of Transportation</i> (NYLJ 2/14/05, p. 19, col. 4), a divided court held that telecommunications towers erected on state land were immune from local zoning regulations even when the much of the space on the towers had been leased to private companies. The court's decision, however, raises as many questions as it resolves.
Although New York courts have long-recognized that "an easement created by grant may be extinguished by adverse possession" (<i>See Harlem Commonwealth Council, Inc. v. Thomas Memorial Wesleyan Methodist Church</i>, 10 A.D.3d 572 (1st Dep't 2004); <i>Spiegel v. Ferraro</i>, 73 N.Y.2d 622, 625 (1989); <i>Gerbig v. Zumpano</i>, 7 N.Y.2d 327 (1960)), a different rule has been applied to "unopened" easements -- <i>ie</i>, easements that have been created by grant but have remained unused. Generally, a possession will not be deemed adverse to an unopened easement or right of way until three conditions have been satisfied. These conditions are: 1) the need by the easement holder for the right of way has arisen; 2) a demand has been made by the easement holder that the right of way be opened; and 3) the servient tenant (property owner) has refused the demand. <i>Castle Associates v. Schwartz</i>, 63 A.D.2d 481 (2d Dep't 1978).
With trillions of dollars to keep watch over, the last thing we need is the distraction of costly litigation brought on by patent assertion entities (PAEs or "patent trolls"), companies that don't make any products but instead seek royalties by asserting their patents against those who do make products.
Insiders (and others) in the private equity business are accustomed to seeing a good deal of discussion ' academic and trade ' on the question of the appropriate methods of valuing private equity positions and securities which are otherwise illiquid. An interesting recent decision in the Southern District has been brought to our attention. The case is <i>In Re Allied Capital Corp.</i>, CCH Fed. SEC L. Rep. 92411 (US DC, S.D.N.Y., Apr. 25, 2003). Judge Lynch's decision is well written, the Judge reviewing a motion to dismiss by a business development company, Allied Capital, against a strike suit claiming that Allied's method of valuing its portfolio failed adequately to account for i) conditions at the companies themselves and ii) market conditions. The complaint appears to be, as is often the case, slap dash, content to point out that Allied revalued some of its positions, marking them down for a variety of reasons, and the stock price went down - all this, in the view of plaintiff's counsel, amounting to violations of Rule 10b-5.
At the Oscars in March, Best Actress winner Frances McDormand made “inclusion rider” go viral. But Kalpana Kotagal, a partner at Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll had already worked for months to write the language for such provisions. Kotagal was developing legal language for contract provisions that Hollywood's elite could use to require studios and other partners to employ diverse workers on set.
This 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.
While the DOJ Civil Cyber-Fraud Initiative is still in its early stages and cybersecurity regulations are evolving, whistleblower plaintiffs have already begun leveraging the FCA to pursue alleged noncompliance with government cybersecurity requirements.
