JD Supra United States
- Publisher:
- JD Supra
- Publication date:
- 2019-04-29
Publisher
- JD Supra (355670)
Law Firm
- Ballard Spahr LLP (7083)
- McDermott Will & Emery (5484)
- Foley & Lardner LLP (5140)
- King & Spalding (4890)
- Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP (4855)
- BakerHostetler (4666)
- Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C. (4661)
- Allen Matkins (4546)
- Jackson Lewis P.C. (4510)
- Fox Rothschild LLP (4501)
- Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP (4262)
- Carlton Fields (4237)
- Seyfarth Shaw LLP (4201)
- Morrison & Foerster LLP (4142)
- Fisher Phillips (4012)
- Davis Wright Tremaine LLP (3671)
- Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP (3501)
- Baker Donelson (3426)
- Dorsey & Whitney LLP (3406)
- Goodwin (3280)
- McGuireWoods LLP (3256)
- Morgan Lewis (3178)
- K&L Gates LLP (3144)
- Littler (3108)
- Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP (3079)
- Cozen O'Connor (2919)
- Troutman Pepper (2883)
- Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP (2854)
- Holland & Knight LLP (2782)
- Kelley Drye & Warren LLP (2699)
- Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP (2576)
- Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner (2562)
- Hogan Lovells (2486)
- McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP (2453)
- Bergeson & Campbell, P.C. (2448)
- Thomas Fox (2412)
- Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates & Woodyard, P.L.L.C. (2407)
- Eversheds Sutherland (US) LLP (2356)
- Cooley LLP (2352)
- Robinson+Cole Data Privacy + Security Insider (2255)
- U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) (2223)
- Shearman & Sterling LLP (2205)
- Snell & Wilmer (2169)
- Dechert LLP (2159)
- Robins Kaplan LLP (2110)
- Nossaman LLP (2030)
- Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP (2026)
- Franczek P.C. (2005)
- Womble Bond Dickinson (2003)
- Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP (1973)
Latest documents
- HHS’s CARES Act Final Rule Better Aligns Part 2 Substance Use Disorder Patient Records Confidentiality Regulations with HIPAA
On February 8, 2024, the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office for Civil Rights (OCR) and Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) jointly issued a final rule to amend the Confidentiality of Substance Use Disorder (SUD) Patient Records regulations under 42 C.F.R. Part 2 (Part 2), applicable to certain federally assisted SUD treatment programs (Part 2 Programs), to implement Section 3221 of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act. The final rule modifies longstanding restrictions under Part 2...
- Hydrogen update Germany - new regulatory and market developments
Exciting times for hydrogen market participants in Germany – in the last months, a variety of new regulatory instruments and policy initiatives have been announced which will boost the ramp-up of the hydrogen economy in Germany.
- Fact Sheet: Policy Opportunities to Expand Equitable Access to Telehealth across New York State
Background - Telehealth utilization spiked during the COVID-19 pandemic, facilitated by state and federal policy change through the COVID-19 public health emergency (PHE) declaration. Use has tapered off from the height of the pandemic, but telehealth is still used more widely than prepandemic and has become an integral component of care delivery, particularly for behavioral health. The PHE illuminated the benefits of telehealth in expanding access to care. For many, telehealth offers a convenient, high-quality, and accessible alternative to traditional care, especially for patients who have childcare or work obligations, live in communities that lack transportation options, or require accessible care due to disability. However, barriers remain that limit the potential of telehealth for patients, such as lack of affordable broadband service and digital literacy gaps, and for the providers that serve them, such as disparate payment rates and licensure challenges.
- 6 Key Takeaways - Cross-Jurisdictional Nonuse Actions
Kilpatrick partners Crystal Genteman and Wendy Cheng recently presented “Big Little Fires Everywhere: Cross-Jurisdictional Nonuse Actions to Clear Deadwood” at the firm’s annual 2024 Advanced Trademark Law Seminar in New York.
- Public Company Watch: March 2024
In the March edition of our Public Company Watch, we cover key issues impacting public companies, including the new climate disclosure rules, SEC scrutiny on beneficial ownership filings, West Palm Beach Firefighters’ Pension Fund v. Moelis & Company, which is a recent Delaware decision regarding shareholder agreements, and antitrust regulatory developments, among other topics.
- When the guardian ad litem “representing” the yet-to-come-into-existence beneficiaries of a trust is nonfeasant or malfeasant
Does a court-appointed GAL in a trust matter owe fiduciary duties to the parties to the trust relationship who have yet to come into existence, e.g., the settlor’s future great grandchildren (hereinafter the “non-existent beneficiaries”)? A sine qua non of a fiduciary relationship is accountability. Can there ever be accountability on the part of a GAL when it comes to defending via advocacy the current contingent equitable property rights of non-existent beneficiaries when the court ignores or abets the GAL’s nonfeasance or malfeasance?
- The Practical NLRB Advisor: Spring 2024
The Spring 2024 edition of the Advisor is a compilation of good and bad news for employers. On the good news side, we discuss several current challenges to administrative agency authority in general, and the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB) authority in particular. On the bad news side, we document a small part of the aggressive agenda of the current NLRB. From attempting to administratively impose “card check” to dramatically altering business-to-business relationships, and from finding “protected activity” in even the most attenuated circumstances to rendering the reversal of precedent an everyday occurrence, the current Board majority and its general counsel have been unequaled in their approach.
- Examining The Arbitration Clause Landscape Amid Risks
For more than a decade, companies have benefited immensely from the U.S. Supreme Court's 2011 decision of AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, which upheld a company's right to compel consumers into participating in individual arbitration proceedings, and largely abrogated stricter standards for determining the unconscionability of class action waivers. Originally published in Law360 - March 25, 2024.
- SEC Brings Two More “AI Washing” Enforcement Actions Against Investment Advisers, Continuing Its Pursuit of Misstatements Related to AI
On March 18, 2024, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC or the Commission) announced settled charges against two investment advisers, Delphia (USA) Inc. and Global Predictions, Inc., for making false and misleading statements about their use of artificial intelligence (AI). Delphia and Global Predictions agreed to settle the SEC’s charges and pay civil monetary penalties of $225,000 and $175,000, respectively.
- In-Compliance Newsletter: March 2024 Round-up
On March 15, 2024, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion in Lindke v. Freed and a per curiam opinion in O’Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier addressing when a public official may prevent a person from commenting on the public official’s social media page.
Featured documents
- When are local recruitment meetings operated by corporate entities?
The court held that Koscot needed authorization to do business in the state because it in fact operated the recruitment meetings and not local distributors. Members of the Koscot board of directors attended and spoke at the meetings, they were operated according to a script authorized by Koscot,...
- Where is the proper venue to consolidate pretrial proceedings in a litigation proceeding consisting of 5 cases in 4 districts?
The Panel transferred pretrial proceeding to the Northern District of California because Holiday Magic was located there, most of the witnesses were also there, and litigation was currently pending in that court that had already made significant forward progress. Common questions of law and fact...
- What differentiates a franchise from an investment contract, a type of security?
The District Court held that, according to the US Supreme Court in Howey, an investment contract is an investment of money in an enterprise with an expectation of profit solely from the efforts of others. The agreement with Plum Tree was not in the nature of an investment contract and was a...
- Is an agreement granting an exclusive territory to operate a franchise in an "investment contract" for federal securities law purposes?
The Court of Appeals upheld the district court ruling that the agreement in question was not an "investment contract". Plaintiffs paid T.V. Tempo for the right to publish a television programming guide in an exclusive territory. T.V. Tempo would provide training to the Plaintiffs and their...
- May a trial court judge reverse an order without receiving new facts into evidence?
The Court of Appeals held that a trial court can change a preliminary ruling without additional evidence being submitted. The State presented many exhibits and affidavits to the court, and moved for summary judgment. The trial court denied the motion, specifically stating that several issues were...
- Delaware v. Ferro
The court held that the statute prohibiting pyramid schemes was constitutional, and that an airplane scheme fell under the definitions within the statute because it was a "sales device" that transferred a "right" to perpetuate the scheme. Because the activity clearly fell under the statue, the...
- Is an airplane investment program a security, and can the promoters of the program be held liable as sellers of securities?
The Supreme Court of Kansas was asked if summary judgment was appropriate to determine that an airplane investment program was a security, and that the promoters of the program could be held liable as sellers of securities. The full case and case summary are also available online at: http://www....
- Does the dismissal of a pendant state securities claim in federal court act as an adjudication on the merits for res judicata purposes?
The Louisiana Supreme Court ruled that because the federal court had pendant jurisdiction over the state law claims arising out of the same transaction as the federal claims, the plaintiff is barred res judicata from bringing additional state law claims in state court. Reeder was defrauded in a...
- What is the proper definition of an investment contract?
The Tennessee Supreme Court held that the proper definition of an investment contract is the definition espoused by the Supreme Court of Hawaii: (1) An offeree furnishes initial value to an offeror, and (2) a portion of this initial value is subjected to the risks of the enterprise, and (3) the...
- Does the short maturity time of the "Advertising Pool" program exempt its notes from registration requirements under Federal securities laws?
The Better Life Club of America, Inc., offered people who paid $39 for membership an opportunity to join the "Advertising Pool," a "wealth-building project" which promised a double return on investment in 60 to 90 days. The pool shortly had outstanding obligations to investors of $51.6 million on...