Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Features
<b><I>Potential Ramifications of SEC Disgorgement Being a Penalty</b></i><p><b><i>Part Two of a Two-Part Article</I></b><p>The <I>Kokesh</I> decision raises potential consequences that move beyond the realm of SEC enforcement. They are discussed in depth in this article.
Features
On June 19, the U.S. Supreme Court upended years of jurisprudence to hand corporations a gift: a far more stringent definition of specific jurisdiction that will force plaintiffs to bring suit in multiple state courts rather than join their claims to those in far-flung jurisdictions.
Features
The U.S. Supreme Court will soon decide the long-awaited issue of whether corporations can be liable under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS), enacted by the First Congress more than 225 years ago.
Features
<b><i>Strategies to Defend Against Patent Claims by Raising Lack of Patentable Subject Matter in District Court Litigation</b></i><p>With the Supreme Court's decision in <i>Alice</i>, parties defending against a claim of patent infringement gained a potential way to find an early resolution to patent litigation.
Features
In 2017, 25 states and the District of Columbia are considering legislation that would prohibit employers from asking job candidates about past salaries. But the Ninth Circuit recently affirmed a 35-year-old decision at a time when the rest of the country is moving to bridge the gender wage equality gap.
Features
When Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced in July that the federal government planned to again emphasize the pursuit of civil asset forfeitures, an issue moved to the front burner for health care providers and their advisers: If the federal (or state) government decides to pursue a case against a care provider or medical practice, it can seize the alleged culprit's property, even before conviction.
Features
In a recent case, the U.S. Supreme Court applied what has come to be known as the <i>Penn Central</i> balancing test to uphold New York City's refusal to approve an office tower atop Grand Central Terminal.
Features
In <i>Matal v. Tam</i>, the trademark case involving the name of the Asian-American rock band The Slants, the SCOTUS held that the portion of §2(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §1052(a), that prohibits the federal registration of potentially disparaging trademarks and service marks, violated the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.
Features
The Supreme Court as a whole appears aligned and motivated to review critically federal and state asset forfeiture procedures. In addition, Attorney General Sessions last month restored the federal forfeiture of property seized by state and local law enforcement ("federal adoptions"), but with certain additional safeguards.
Features
In <i>Matal v. Tam,</i> the SCOTUS held that a portion of Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §1052(a), prohibiting the federal registration of potentially disparaging trademarks and service marks, violated the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.