Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Features
<b><i>Part One of a Two-Part Article</b></i><p>In <i>Honeycutt v. United States</i>, the Supreme Court rejected the argument that a federal criminal forfeiture statute permits joint and several liability for criminal asset forfeiture judgments, thereby protecting defendants who were only marginally culpable for a larger offense.
Features
Ultimately, <i>Village at Lakeridge</i> is noteworthy for what the Supreme Court did not decide. In granting <i>certiorari</i>, the Supreme Court declined to address whether the lower courts' various “non-statutory insider” tests should be refined. As concurrences from Justices Sotomayor and Kennedy emphasized, though, that issue is ripe for increased scrutiny.
Features
With its decision in <i>Digital Realty v. Somers</i>, the U.S. Supreme Court dealt a blow to companies interested in learning of their own securities violations before the government gets the heads-up. The case's outcome means whistleblowers who might have reported violations internally will be incentivized to bypass their own companies' compliance mechanisms in favor of immediate reporting to the SEC.
Features
The Supreme Court's decision and analysis are instructive for both bankruptcy and corporate practitioners, and will likely yield significant returns for estate beneficiaries.
Features
CareFirst, a large health care company involved in a data breach case, asked the U.S. Supreme Court to weigh in on whether victims can establish Article III standing to sue for the risk of future identity theft. The Court denied the request, leaving intact a recent district court holding that consumers could successfully plead such a claim issue — and leaving a split among the federal appellate courts.
Features
The U.S. Supreme Court recently agreed to consider whether a patentee may recover foreign lost profits resulting from infringement of a United States patent.
Features
This article examines the impact of <i>TC Heartland</i> with a focus on recent Federal Circuit decisions applying <i>TC Heartland</i> and further clarifying the scope of where patent cases may be filed.
Features
<b><i>There Was No Clear Majority at Oral Argument Signaling the Death of</i> Inter Partes <i>Review</b></i><p>November 27 was supposed to be the big Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) showdown at the U.S. Supreme Court. After two hours of questioning, it seemed more like a big bust.
Features
Determining whether or not a government regulation constitutes a “taking” for the purposes of the Fifth Amendment can be a complex endeavor. The recent Second Department decision of <i>Matter of New Creek Bluebelt, Phase 3 (Baycrest Manor Inc.)</i>, provides some guidance on three important regulatory takings issues.
Features
<b><i>Part Two of a Three-Part Article</i></b><p>Notwithstanding the absence of an explicit gag order in the statute, the DOJ takes the position that, even if the relator properly files the case under seal at the outset, that relator can later “breach the seal,” and be subject to judicial sanction, if he or she discloses the existence of the <i>qui tam</i> to others.