Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Features
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.
Features
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.
Features
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.
Features
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.
Features
Federal courts long have struggled to define the limits of the mail and wire fraud statutes, laws famously characterized as the prosecutor's true love for their vast breadth and catch-all adaptability. After sidestepping opportunities in the past, the U.S. Supreme Court is now wading into two different and controversial manifestations of that flexibility.
Features
Employment attorneys say the breadth of new state laws — and the pace at which they are going into effect — means in-house counsel at companies trying to create workarounds for employees in states with restrictive abortion laws by providing benefits that would allow them to travel out-of-state to access abortion services will need to be on high alert, since keeping up on top of the laws will be key to limiting their exposure to litigation — or even criminal penalties.
Features
In June 2021, the Supreme Court ruled in U.S. v. Arthrex that the statutory scheme appointing Patent Trial and Appeal Board administrative patent judges to adjudicate IPRs violates the appointments clause of the U.S. Constitution. Specifically, the Court concluded that because APJ decisions in IPR proceedings are not reviewable by a presidentially appointed and Senate-confirmed officer, such determinations are not compatible with the powers of inferior officers. The PTO later decided that it would not accept requests for director review of institution decisions. This policy is now also being questioned in Arthrex's wake.
Features
In 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court applied strict scrutiny to a sign regulation as it related to directional signs placed by a local congregation that held services at different locations each week. In April 2022, the Court took another look at the issue of strict scrutiny relating to "off-premises" signs in City of Austin, Texas v. Reagan National Advertising.
Features
In 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court applied strict scrutiny to a sign regulation as it related to directional signs placed by a local congregation that held services at different locations each week. The Court took another look at the issue of strict scrutiny relating to "off-premises" signs in the case of City of Austin, Texas v. Reagan National Advertising , in which the majority concluded that strict scrutiny should not apply to determining whether the off-premises sign regulations at issue violated the First Amendment.
Features
The Ninth Circuit had ruled in 2020 that §411(b)(1)(A) of the federal Copyright Act excuses inadvertent mistakes of fact on copyright registrations but not mistakes of law. The Supreme Court has now ruled 6-3 that the provision covers both mistakes of facts and law.