Features

Takeaways from the Swift End to <i>Waymo v. Uber</i>
The details might not be quite as dramatic as they were in <i>Waymo v. Uber</i>, but lawyers expect trade secrets to continue to be a fertile source for litigation.
Features

The National Opioid Epidemic: The Emergence of a Multi-Layered Approach
On Oct. 26, 2017, Eric D. Hargan, Acting Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, announced that, as a result of the opioid epidemic, “a public health emergency exists nationwide.” As a result, counties, states and the federal government have mounted an attack on the pharmaceutical industry.
Features

Five Ways to Eliminate the Need for a Corporate Monitor
Government-imposed corporate monitors — once a rare occurrence in the U.S. — are now commonplace, not only with domestic regulators, but also with regulatory agencies in various other countries, in connection with enforcement proceedings and prosecutions for criminal offenses such as anti-corruption violations and other misconduct.
Features

The False Claims Act Sealing Orders
<b><i>What They Say and Do Not Say</b></i><p><b><i>Part Three of a Three-Part Article</b></i><p>The question remains: Is the defendant in a False Claims Act matter barred from discussing the case, as are the relator and the government?
Columns & Departments
In the Courts
Royal Dutch Shell and Eni Head to Trial over Nigeria Corruption Allegations
Columns & Departments
Business Crimes Hotline
Keppel Settles Bribery Charges in the U.S., Singapore, and Brazil
Features

<i>Ganek v. Leibowitz</i> and a Proposal to Reform Search Warrant Procedure
The Second Circuit recently reversed a district court's determination that federal prosecutors and agents were not entitled to qualified immunity from plaintiffs' <i>Bivens</i> claims for money damages for violations of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments in procuring and executing a search warrant.
Features

DE Courts Uphold Strict Limitations on Liability for Oversight Claims
In 2017, two cases illustrated that Delaware courts continue to impose exacting pleading burdens on <i>Caremark</i> claims, especially when plaintiffs say that they are excused from making a demand on the board before suing derivatively.
Need Help?
- Prefer an IP authenticated environment? Request a transition or call 800-756-8993.
- Need other assistance? email Customer Service or call 1-877-256-2472.
MOST POPULAR STORIES
- Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright LawsThis article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.Read More ›
- The Article 8 Opt InThe Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.Read More ›
- Warehouse Liability: Know Before You Stow!As consumers continue to shift purchasing and consumption habits in the aftermath of the pandemic, manufacturers are increasingly reliant on third-party logistics and warehousing to ensure their products timely reach the market.Read More ›
- In the Spotlight: The Use of a Captive Insurance Company By a Commercial TenantThis article addresses what it means for a tenant to self-insure or obtain insurance through a captive, and how a landlord and tenant can modify their lease accordingly.Read More ›
- The Stranger to the Deed RuleIn 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.Read More ›