United States Supreme Court

In March, the Supreme Court heard a blockbuster trademark case with significant implications for trademark law. After argument, reversal seems likely as questioning from the justices suggests that a long-standing precedent is unlikely to survive unscathed. But the Court also indicated concern over the broader implications of this case in the arts, entertainment, and publishing. Here's what you need to know about Jack Daniel's v. VIP Products.

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.

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.

The decision by the Supreme Court has practical significance for corporate officers and others in an agency or partnership relationship, and also may have serious consequences for corporate Chapter 11 debtors whenever a "domestic governmental unit" is a creditor.

Part One 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 and S.E.C v. Lorenzo. Janus is discussed here in the first installment.

Historically, federal courts generally agreed that scheme liability under SEC Rule 10b-5(a) and (c) requires something more than a misstatement or omission — with misstatements and omissions typically being litigated under Rule 10b-5(b) instead. However, the SCOTUS in Lorenzo v. SEC held that an individual who disseminates a misstatement, without other fraudulent conduct, is potentially liable under the scheme liability provisions of Rule 10b-5. Subsequently, a circuit split has emerged over the scope of Lorenzo's holding.

During the recent oral arguments before it, the U.S. Supreme Court sounded open to extending more fair use protection to an Andy Warhol painting of rock icon Prince than the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit did.

In the October 2022 Term, the Supreme Court is set to decide whether courts assessing transformativeness under the first fair-use factor of the Copyright Act may consider "the meaning of the accused work where it 'recognizably deriv[es] from' its source material." The case may profoundly affect the fair use analysis, and in turn, the scope of copyright protection for many works.