Tuesday, April 30, 2013
Judge Scheindlin’s Collection Case and Florida E-Discovery Amendments
Can You Get Jail Time For Watching A Cartoon?
So do you think someone can get jail time for watching a cartoon? Would it make any difference if the cartoons were sexual? Decide for yourself, after reading this from stuff.co.nz:
Ronald Clark downloaded the Japanese anime cartoons three years ago, setting in train events that would see him in court in Auckland and jailed for three months for possessing objectionable material, and sparking debate as to what harm is caused by digitally created pornography.That's a yes. Perhaps a little background will assist you, perhaps not.
Clark has previous convictions for indecently assaulting a teenage boy and has been through rehabilitation programmes, but the video nasties he was watching in this case were all cartoons and drawings. He says the videos came from an established tradition of Japanese manga and hentai (cartoon pornography), a massive, mainstream industry in that country.
They weren't even depictions of people - Clark's lawyer Roger Bowden described them as "pixies and trolls" that "you knew at a glance weren't human". Bowden said the conviction for possessing objectionable material was "the law gone mad".
However, while the cartoon characters were elves and pixies, they were also clearly young elves and pixies, which led to concerns the images were linked to child sexual abuse.So what do you think? If you're uncertain, you can read more (a fair amount) here.
Source: http://rss.justia.com/~r/LegalJuiceCom/~3/hSIltXhi0Q8/post_653.html
absolute power of attorney attorney attorney at law attorney definition attorney directory
Turning TECHSHOW Topics into a Technology Agenda
Social Media and Lawsuits
Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/lawyer-2-lawyer/2012/07/social-media-and-lawsuits/
employment law employment law courses employment lawyer employment lawyer san diego employment lawyers
Virginia Tech families allowed appeal in shootings case
The Supreme Court of Virginia now says it will consider appeals from both sides of the Virginia Tech wrongful death trial.
The court has agreed to hear an argument from the families of two victims of the 2007 shootings that – if they prevail on appeal – could allow recovery of more than $100,000 each.
The two families won jury verdicts of $4 million each, but each award was capped at $100,000 under the Virginia Tort Claims Act.
The Supreme Court already had agreed to hear the state’s argument that the families were not entitled to any recovery because university officials owed no duty to warn of danger from a third party.
The court decided Thursday to also consider whether Virginia Tech president Charles Steger should have remained in the case. Trial Judge William Alexander ruled the families’ claim against Steger was barred because Steger had been sued in an earlier action that was dismissed.
With Steger as a defendant, the plaintiffs would have a chance to avoid the $100,000 cap of the VTCA.
The families had asked the Supreme Court to reconsider its earlier decision not to take up the Steger issue.
The original petition for appeal would have been considered only by a three-judge panel. The petition to reconsider went before the full court, with any judge having the ability to grant an appeal. The court’s order granting the writ does not reflect which justice, or justices, agreed to take up the Steger issue.
The families’ successful petition for rehearing highlights the choice facing a lawyer who fails to get a writ. Two Supreme Court justices had some advice Friday for lawyers considering a request for a second look.
A lawyer might worry about appearing a sore loser, but neither Chief Justice Cynthia D. Kinser nor Justice Elizabeth A. McClanahan suggested the lawyer’s reputation should be a consideration.
“I can’t think of any reason not to do it if you believe you have a reason to do it,” McClanahan said, addressing lawyers at the Virginia State Bar’s Solo & Small Firm Practitioner Forum in Abingdon.
McClanahan said the court does not keep any tally of which lawyers ask for rehearings, and the lawyer’s name does not appear on the cover page.
Kinser said a petition for rehearing after denial of a writ will bring the issue before the entire court, improving the odds of success, but she urged lawyers not to hide their best arguments deep in a brief.
“I think the important thing, if you’re going to file one, is you need to catch our attention in the first paragraph,” Kinser said. “We have so much to read, it’s really important to tell us right in the beginning why somebody should grant your petition.”
Ireland high court rules paralyzed woman has no right to assisted suicide
criminal defense lawyer criminal injury lawyers criminal justice lawyer criminal law criminal law cases
Second Circuit Reverses Dismissal of Section 11 and 12(a)(2) Claims, Holding that Plaintiff's Allegations Were Sufficient to Plead a Reasonable Inference of Misrepresentations in a Prospectus
In New Jersey Carpenters Health Fund v. Royal Bank of Scotland Group, PLC, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 4317 (2d Cir. Mar. 1, 2013), the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed the dismissal of a claim for violations of Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities Act”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 77k, 77l, holding that the plaintiff pleaded sufficient facts to support a reasonable inference that defendants misstated mortgage underwriting guidelines to investors. This decision is notable for its application of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) pleading standard, as clarified by the United States Supreme Court in BellAtlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009), to claims under the Securities Act.
Plaintiff’s allegations centered on its May 2007 investment in a mortgage fund trust (the “trust”) offered by defendants. The trust was offered under a registration statement and supplemental prospectus (the “prospectus”) that provided a detailed description of the underwriting guidelines used in originating the mortgage loans. The prospectus also contained statements warning investors of certain risks associated with the trust, including a likelihood of higher loss and foreclosure rates, characteristics which would increase the likelihood of default, and systemic risks such as market decline.
The value of plaintiff’s investment decreased substantially between May 2007 and March 2010. Plaintiff sued, alleging that the registration statement and amended prospectus misstated defendants’ underwriting guidelines and failed to disclose defendants’ abandonment of those guidelines, thus violating Sections 11 and 12(a)(2).
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed plaintiff’s complaint for failure to state a plausible claim, holding that plaintiff had failed to make allegations “specific to” the loan origination practices. N.J. Carpenters Health Fund v. NovaStar Mortg., Inc., No. 08 Civ. 5310(DAB), 2012 WL 1076143 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 29, 2012). The district court also held that plaintiff had failed to allege the materiality of any potential misstatements or omissions in light of the risk disclosures that were contained in the prospectus. Plaintiff appealed.
The Second Circuit reversed. The Court acknowledged that the Rule 8(a) notice pleading standards set forth in Twombly and Iqbal apply to claims under Section 11 and 12(a)(2). The Second Circuit explained that courts may “draw a reasonable inference of liability” where the pleaded facts are “suggestive of” a finding of misconduct. The Court held that the existence of competing inferences does not render a plaintiff’s claim unreasonable unless those inferences rise to the level of “obvious alternative explanation[s].” In establishing this standard, the Court cited with approval the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Plumbers’ Union Local No. 12 Pension Fund v. Namer Asset Acceptance Corp., 632 F. 3d 762 (1st Cir. 2011), which applied the same standard to a similar case, and noted that the majority of districts within the Second Circuit have allowed similar claims to proceed where plaintiffs pled “fairly specific” accounts of systematic disregard of underwriting guidelines. The Court also contrasted the “plausible inference” pleading standard under Twombly/Iqbal with the “strong inference” pleading standard under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(b)(2)(A), and Tellabs Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd., 551 U.S. 308 (2007) [blog article here].
The Court held that plaintiff’s allegations, viewed as a whole, allowed for the reasonable inference that defendants had misstated their underwriting guidelines. Plaintiff provided three factual allegations in support of its claims: (1) that credit rating agencies had downgraded the trust’s rating due to loosening of underwriting practices; (2) that the trust experienced unusually high default rates; and (3) that statements of at least eight former employees contradicted the prospectus’ description of the trust’s underwriting standards. The Court noted that the alleged employee statements constituted a “more substantial source[]” that were not merely consistent with, but suggestive of defendants’ liability. These alleged statements, read in conjunction with plaintiff’s other factual allegations, described plaintiff’s claims with sufficient specificity to state a claim under Sections 11 and 12(a)(2).
Defendants argued that this inference of liability was unreasonable on three grounds. First, defendants argued that the testimony of unnamed employees was both untrustworthy and unrepresentative of company policy. The Court disagreed, noting that plaintiffs may rely on unnamed sources described with “sufficient particularity” to demonstrate the probability of their knowledge. The Court also noted that, as the former employees had allegedly worked at offices spread across the country, their statements could support a reasonable inference that they described company-wide policies. Next, defendants argued the inference of liability was unreasonable because the prospectus had disclosed the risk of higher rates of default and market collapse, and because the reduction in the trust’s rating was due to a deterioration of its credit quality. The Court disagreed again, noting that these facts did not rise to the level of an “obvious alternative explanation” and were consistent with plaintiff’s allegations. Finally, defendants argued that the prospectus did not misstate the loan origination practices because it disclosed that defendants could make “exceptions” to the underwriting guidelines. The Court rejected this argument as well, noting that a disclosure that “exceptions” might be made does not support complete abandonment of the underwriting standards.
Despite the Court’s attempt to reconcile the “plausible inference” pleading standard under Twombly/Iqbal with the “strong inference” pleading standard under Tellabs, some tension remains. While it may appear obvious that a “plausible inference” standard is less onerous than a “strong inference” standard, in practice the two standards arguably are converging. Perhaps when a court applies Twombly/Iqbal to a securities claim also subject to Tellabs it can provide some additional clarification.
For further information, please contact John Stigi at (310) 228-3717 or Robin Achen at (213) 617-5579.
Pit Bull Owners Bark at Background Check Bill
Source: http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2013/04/25/pit-bull-owners-bark-at-background-check-bill/?mod=WSJBlog
free attorney consultation free lawyer free lawyer advice free lawyer consultation free lawyer consultation california
Monday, April 29, 2013
Paralegal Career Opportunities in Litigation Support
The Eureka Moment: How Big Law Has Learned to Love Legal Practice Management
local lawyer local solicitors mold attorney need a lawyer patent lawyer
Absolute Novelty Worldwide - Not Always So Absolute
Lawyers' Duty to Know Technology?
Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/kennedy-mighell-report/2012/05/lawyers-duty-to-know-technology/
legal news legal services lemon law letter of attorney litigation attorney
THE PRACTICE: After Boston: Security Is Every Company's Business
Source: http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNLJ.jsp?id=1202597683578&rss=rss_nlj
personal injury lawyer personal injury lawyers power attorney power of attorney power of attorny
Sunday, April 28, 2013
When Conscience Conflicts With Constituents
Last week, the Senate voted against a proposal for background checks on gun buyers. Several senators from states with strong pro-gun constituencies cast votes supporting the checks despite voter polls. On divisive issues, politicians may often face a choice between personal and public opinion.
» E-Mail This » Add to Del.icio.us
Source: http://www.npr.org/2013/04/24/178827841/when-conscience-conflicts-with-constituents?ft=1&f=1070
Children Hostage in the War on Pot
The home of Idaho marijuana activists Lindsey and Josh Rinehart was raided on Tuesday by Boise Police and Child Protective Services while Lindsey, Josh and their friend Sarah Caldwell, a fellow marijuana activist, were on a small trip to the mountains.Lindsey and Josh’s two children were taken into “protective custody,” and because Sarah’s two children were also at the residence with the babysitter, they were taken as well.
It's left unsaid what exactly the arrests might be for, but I would take a wild guess and say it probably has something to do with this:
“This happened yesterday, so now it’s a waiting game for hearings and to see if the state is pressing charges,” Frank said. “When the police raided the house they took several garbage bags full of evidence (Lindsey has MS) so charges are probably being filed as we speak.
Several garbage bags full of evidence can mean a lot of things. Let us assume that the evidence is marijuana, and the "several garbage bags full" means, say, a lot of it. Enough of it to make it a felony punishable by a term of years in prison.
The parents of the children taken are open supporters of marijuana legalization, leaders of the movement to make medical marijuana available in Idaho.
Lindsey Rinehart is the director, chief petitioner and volunteer coordinator for Compassionate Idaho’s medical marijuana petition. She is also a core member of the Idaho HOPEFest Committee and of Idaho Moms for Marijuana. Josh Rinehart is Lindsey’s husband, director of Idaho NORML, and core member of Idaho HOPEFest and Compassionate Idaho.
Sarah Caldwell is executive director of finance in Moms For Marijuana International. She is also a founding member of Idaho Moms for Marijuana, founding director of Compassionate Idaho, Idaho NORML, and the Idaho HOPEFest.
They shouldn't have been terribly hard for the police to find if they were inclined to hunt them down as heinous criminals. They're names and addresses were likely all over the place. It's one of the risks one takes when deciding to take a stand on an issue like the legalization of marijuana, where enlightenment comes one state at a time, one police department at a time.
Why the Boise police chose that day to raid the Rhinehart's home isn't said, but the fact that they were away makes the timing curious. The fact that the only adult there was a baby sitter with the children too. And the fact that it wasn't only the Rhinehart's children, but the children of a fellow activist as well, seems especially interesting.
In the scheme of grave injustices, one can argue which is worse. Is it the beatings or maimings? Is it a killing or the humiliation of having an officer insert a hand into a woman's vagina on the public roadside. There are no shortage of grave injustices, and while most people believe the one they endured to be the most horrible, there is no real need to argue the hierarchy of which is worse. They are all wrong, and there is no reason to compete.
But this raid stinks of the deliberate intent to seize the Rhinehart's and Caldwell's children. The cops came with Child Protective Services in tow. These activists didn't hide in the shadows like the anonymous tough guys of the internet, but put their names to their beliefs and made themselves open targets in the War on Drugs.
It's no stretch to suppose that the police knew the parents were off while the children remained behind. Not alone. Not without care. But without a parent present to call a neighbor, a relative, someone to take custody of their children if the parents were arrested.
That the police believe in their holy war against these heinous marijuana activists presents one issue, an issue with which a great many people disagree. But that they seized their children and hold them hostage as part of their battle plan is an outrage. Forget the benign rhetoric used by the government when it comes to children, like the dubiously named Child Protective Services. Forget the way politicians appeal to our emotion by tossing about the "do it for the children" argument whenever they want to crush another right or criminalize half the population.
The children of the Rhineharts and Sarah Caldwell were kidnapped by the police as a weapon in the war. They are a bargaining chip to shut the activists down and put them away. Had these children been taken by anyone else, there would be a thousand person hunt for their whereabouts. Instead, they will face a grueling battle with a system designed to impose a Puritan's vision of proper child-rearing.
“They are heartbroken and just want their babies back,” Frank said. “Unfortunately, it’s a long, drawn-out process once CPS has them in custody.
“All three of these dedicated cannabis warriors are physically disabled, and receive very little to no income, and absolutely zero income from any of their volunteer efforts in cannabis reform,” Frank said. “They are all in need of help to retain both family law and criminal law attorneys.
They can fight the battle for marijuana reform. They should have realized that they risked arrest at any moment. This is the price of taking a stand. But having the state kidnap their children and hold them for ransom wasn't part of the deal. Fight with the parents all you want, but leave the children out of it. Do it for the children.
H/T Radley Balko
© 2012 Simple Justice NY LLC. This feed is for personal, non-commercial & Newstex use only. The use of this feed on any other website is a copyright violation. If this feed is not via RSS reader or Newstex, it infringes the copyright.
Source: http://blog.simplejustice.us/2013/04/26/children-hostage-in-the-war-on-pot.aspx?ref=rss
government lawyer green card lawyer immigration attorney immigration law immigration lawyer
Pakistan court orders house-arrest for former president Musharraf
After a Productive Two Years, Hank Morris Wins His Freedom
lawyer fees lawyer firm lawyer malpractice attorneys lawyer office lawyers
The Legal Toolkit is Back
Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/2013/03/the-legal-toolkit-is-back/
Good-Time Credit for Enemy Combatants? Court Says No
Source: http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2013/04/24/good-time-credit-for-enemy-combatants-court-says-no/?mod=WSJBlog
Incompetent Immigration Detainees Win Right to Counsel
Source: http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNLJ.jsp?id=1202597575709&rss=rss_nlj
legal help legal information legal news legal services lemon law
Saturday, April 27, 2013
Pakistan court orders house-arrest for former president Musharraf
The Best Paralegal Law Technology Trends
Six Hats: Parallel Thinking for Paralegals
The Legal Trade Show Survival Guide
Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/legal-toolkit/2012/07/the-legal-trade-show-survival-guide/
defense lawyer discrimination lawyers district attorney divorce atterney divorce attorney
No district court jurisdiction for federal employee challenging adverse employment action (6-3)
The US Supreme Court held this morning that the Civil Service Reform Act (CSRA) precludes district court jurisdiction over Elgin's claim that his removal from federal service was based on an unconstitutional statute. The procedural route prescribed by the CSRA is by appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) and, if dissatisfied with the result, appeal to the Federal Circuit, whose decisions in turn are reviewable by the Supreme Court.
Elgin v. Dept of Treasury (US Supreme Ct 06/11/2012)
A federal statute bars employment in the executive branch of male citizens who failed to register for the draft. Elgin, who had been discharged from his job, first challenged the decision before the MSPB - arguing that the statutory bar was unconstitutional - but an ALJ dismissed his case on the ground that the MSPB lacked authority to review the constitutionality of a federal statute. Rather than appealing from that decision, Elgin sued in federal district court.
The US Supreme Court held that the district court lacked jurisdiction because it is "fairly discernable" from the CSRA's text, structure, and purpose that Congress precluded district court jurisdiction over Elgin's claims. Based on CSRA's text and structure, there is no exception for constitutional challenges to federal statutes. If the MSPB lacks power to hear such claims, they can be meaningfully addressed by the Federal Circuit.
The DISSENT argued that Elgin's "constitutional claims are a far cry from the type of claim that Congress intended to channel through the [MSPB]."
Source: http://www.lawmemo.com/blog/2012/06/no_district_cou.html
Egypt president affirms commitment to judicial system
Source: http://jurist.org/paperchase/2013/04/egypt-president-affirms-commitment-to-judicial-system.php
Technology-Enhanced Television
Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/kennedy-mighell-report/2012/08/technology-enhanced-television/
employment law courses employment lawyer employment lawyer san diego employment lawyers estate attorney
Friday, April 26, 2013
Newsflash: McDonald's focuses on "value"
McDonald’s advertising is changing, according to one report. Last year, Big M promoted higher-priced menu items. While more healthy food is important, Big M couldn’t show the value of its new menu items to the consumer. Today, the company's emphasis is on “value,” the lower priced items that its customer base is accustomed to receiving.
If your market is the commodity-type legal services, then you will have less flexibility in setting legal fees. If your market is more toward the unique, the special or the bet-the-company type practice, then you will have greater flexibility and can charge more for your services. The key element is to understand the nature of your customer and then communicate effectively with the client.
Source: http://feeds.lexblog.com/~r/LawBizBlog/~3/IYsPDt_cj3M/
Desktop as a Service for Lawyers
Rowe is a 4th generation attorney with an undergraduate degree in computer science and business administration. He now works as a technology consultant for law firms and businesses at OTB-Consulting and was named Technolawyer’s technology consultant of the year.
Rowe answers questions about DaaS for big, small, and solo firms, how to make DaaS secure, how to make it cost effective, and more. He will also talk about SaaS, software as a service, as it relates to lawyers and DaaS users.
Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/legal-toolkit/2013/04/desktop-as-a-service-for-lawyers
Find Now, Read Later
Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/kennedy-mighell-report/2012/07/find-now-read-later/
legal services lemon law letter of attorney litigation attorney local attorney
Global E-Discovery & Da Silva Moore Technology Assisted Review Case Overview
Pit Bull Owners Bark at Background Check Bill
Source: http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2013/04/25/pit-bull-owners-bark-at-background-check-bill/?mod=WSJBlog
international law schools internet lawyer labor attorney lafayette attorney law
Pit Bull Owners Bark at Background Check Bill
Source: http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2013/04/25/pit-bull-owners-bark-at-background-check-bill/?mod=WSJBlog
Thursday, April 25, 2013
EEOC can use Teamsters-style pattern-or-practice theory under Title VII § 706
Serrano sued in a class action claiming sex discrimination and the EEOC intervened. The trial court ruled for the employer on a number of issues; the 6th Circuit reversed. Serrano and EEOC v. Cintas Corp (6th Cir 11/09/2012).
The main issue was whether EEOC could pursue a pattern-or-practice style claim pursuant to § 706 of Title VII.
The employer argued that under § 706 the EEOC is limited to proving its allegations of discrimination pursuant to the McDonnell Douglas Corp v. Green, 411 US 792 (1973), burden-shifting framework, and cannot use the pattern-or-practice framework announced by the Supreme Court in Teamsters v. United States, 431 US 324 (1977). The court rejected that argument. Even though the Teamsters case arose under § 707, the theory of that case can be used under § 706.
The trial court erred in holding that the employer was entitled to judgment on the pleadings in light of the EEOC's failure to plead its intent to rely on the Teamsters framework. Although the EEOC's complaint "is not a model of good lawyering," a plaintiff need not indicate at the pleading stage which circumstantial evidentiary framework it plans to use.
Source: http://www.lawmemo.com/blog/2012/11/eeoc_can_use_te.html
lemon law letter of attorney litigation attorney local attorney local lawyer
California Supreme Court Resolves Court of Appeal Split, Holding that Section 2010 of the California Corporations Code -- California's "Survival Statute" -- Does Not Apply to Foreign Corporations
In Greb v. Diamond Int’l Corp., 2013 WL 628328 (Cal. Feb. 21, 2013), the California Supreme Court unequivocally and unanimously laid to rest the assertion that dissolved foreign corporations may be sued in California after the time of the statute of limitations provided by the laws under which the foreign corporations were incorporated. In so holding, the California Supreme Court affirmed the California Court of Appeal for the First District’s dismissal of a personal injury claim against a dissolved Delaware corporation, holding that the claim was filed more than three years after dissolution of the corporation in violation of Delaware General Corporation Law Section 278 [blog article here]. In deciding that the California survival statute did not apply to foreign corporations, the Supreme Court resolved a split among California appellate courts on the interpretation of California Corporations Code Section 2010 (“Section 2010”), which governs the winding-up and survival of dissolved corporations.
In December 2008, plaintiffs Walter Greb (now deceased) and his wife Karen Greb filed a complaint for personal injuries and loss of consortium against defendant Diamond International Corporation (“Diamond”) and several other entities. Plaintiffs’ complaint alleged injuries from exposure to asbestos. Although Diamond had been dissolved for many years, plaintiffs sought recovery from unexhausted liability insurance that covered defendant during the decades when it did business in California. Diamond demurred to plaintiffs’ complaint, alleging that more than three years earlier, in July 2005, it had obtained a corporate dissolution pursuant to the laws of Delaware, Diamond’s state of incorporation. Accordingly, Diamond argued, pursuant to Delaware’s three-year survival statute, when plaintiffs filed their complaint in December 2008 Diamond lacked the capacity to be sued. Plaintiffs opposed the motion, arguing that they were entitled to file a lawsuit in California under Section 2010, which permits lawsuits to be filed against a dissolved corporation irrespective of the date of dissolution, which they asserted took precedence over Delaware law in this setting.
The California Superior Court for the County of San Francisco held Section 2010 did not apply to foreign corporations, and hence that Delaware’s corresponding statute applied to Diamond. Accordingly, the trial court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend, and dismissed plaintiffs’ complaint with prejudice. On appeal, the Court of Appeal affirmed. It followed the interpretation of Section 2010 set out in dicta in two prior Court of Appeal decisions — North American Asbestos Corp. v. Superior Court, 128 Cal. App. 3d 138 (1982) (“North American I”), and Riley v. Fitzgerald, 178 Cal. App. 3d 871 (1986) — and disagreed with the holding concerning the statute set out in a third Court of Appeal decision, North American Asbestos Corp. v. Superior Court, 180 Cal. App. 3d 902 (1986) (“North American II”). The Supreme Court granted review to resolve the conflict.
Section 2010 provides:
A corporation which is dissolved nevertheless continues to exist for the purpose of winding up its affairs, prosecuting and defending actions by or against it and enabling it to collect and discharge obligations, dispose of and convey its property and collect and divide its assets, but not for the purpose of continuing business except so far as necessary for the winding up thereof.
The parties in Greb agreed that if Section 2010 did not apply to a dissolved foreign corporation, Diamond’s capacity to be sued would be governed solely by Delaware’s corresponding survival statute (8 Del. Code § 278), which would bar plaintiffs’ claims against Diamond. If, on the other hand, Section 2010 applied to a dissolved foreign corporation, a court would then be required to perform a choice-of-law analysis in order to determine which state’s law should apply and govern Diamond’s capacity to be sued.
The Supreme Court analyzed the conflict in the appellate decisions to determine whether Section 2010 applied to dissolved foreign corporations. The Supreme Court noted that the courts in both North American I and Riley reasoned that statutory provisions and history lead to the conclusion that Section 2010 does not apply to suits against dissolved foreign corporations. The court in North American II, however, reached a different conclusion. The majority in North American II held that “some of the history behind [Section 2010] and related provisions of corporation law” led to the conclusion “that section 2010 should not be so read under the circumstances of the case at bench, but should be read to protect the interests of California.” The majority in North American II also believed that the Legislature intended all of the various sections within the applicable code section to apply generally to both domestic and foreign business corporations.
The Supreme Court agreed with North American I and Riley, and disagreed with North American II. As the Supreme Court observed, the majority in North American II did not address Riley, which had been decided less than two months earlier. The Supreme Court also noted that the leading treatises and the majority of out-of-state decisions during the era when the code sections were enacted had held that a state’s survival statute typically does not apply to foreign corporations. “[I]n light of the national scope of the comprehensive review that preceded the legislation,” the Supreme Court reasoned, “if our Legislature had contemplated such a dramatic change from the majority approach, we would expect it to have been clear in doing so.” Thus, the Supreme Court concluded that Section 2010 did not apply to foreign corporations, and disapproved of North American II to the extent it held otherwise. Having reached that decision, the Supreme Court did not perform a choice-of-law comparative-impairment analysis in order to determine which state’s law should apply.
In deciding that the survival statute did not apply to foreign corporations, the court resolved a split among California appellate courts on the matter. The Supreme Court noted, “[t]he policy question concerning whether the provisions of California’s survival statute should apply to foreign as well as domestic corporations is properly a matter to be determined by the Legislature, not this court.” It remains to be seen whether the Legislature will enact legislation that might undo Greb.
For further information, please contact John Stigi at (310) 228-3717 or Taraneh Fard at (213) 617-5492.
Federal Circuit Nominee Questioned on Patent Law
divorce atterney divorce attorney divorce lawers divorce lawyer divorce lawyers
Accelerate Your Use of Metrics
Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/tech-experts/2012/08/accelerate-your-use-of-metrics/
Solos, Structured Settlements, & Medicare Set Asides
estate attorney family law family lawyer federal attorney financial lawyer
Which law schools are tops for jobs?
Source: http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNLJ.jsp?id=1202594953783&rss=rss_nlj
Wednesday, April 24, 2013
Gone Clio with Attorney Bruce Godfrey
Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/gone-clio/2012/06/gone-clio-with-attorney-bruce-godfrey/
local attorney local lawyer local solicitors mold attorney need a lawyer
Don't Ignore Governmental Mechanisms for Protecting Intellectual Property Rights
The ‘Public Safety’ Exception
Source: http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2013/04/19/the-public-safety-exception/?mod=WSJBlog
injury attorney injury attorneys injury lawers injury lawyer injury lawyers
Ethical Obligations within E-Discovery
Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/esi-report/2012/03/ethical-obligations-within-e-discovery/
company law conservator copyright lawyer corporate law corporate lawyer
Language is Everything
In which category do you place yourself? These folks on a private farm have a sense of humor.
Source: http://feeds.lexblog.com/~r/LawBizBlog/~3/BFQ_VfG_LGk/
Vet’s court a success and should continue, report says
The Fourth Judicial District Veterans Court is a success, if success is measured by recidivism, according to a state two-year review, available here.
It says that during the first six months after entry into Veterans Court, 83% of participants commit fewer offenses than during the six months just prior to entry. This pattern maintains through both years of data: 72% of participants who have at least 24 months post-entry commit fewer offenses than during the 24 months just prior to entering the court. It also says that the majority of Veterans Court participants have no new offenses while in the program, and those who do commit new offenses generally do so at a non-felony level.
It recommends a strong mentor program, the establishment of which is underway with the assistance of a volunteer coordinator.
This problem-solving court serves veteran defendants struggling with addiction, mental health issues, and/or co-occurring disorders. It promotes sobriety, recovery, and stability through a coordinated response that involves court and probation personnel along with the addition of the U.S Veterans Administration (VA) Medical Center, the Veterans Benefits Administration, and volunteer veteran mentors.