We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.

Search results

Order by: most recent most popular relevance



Results:1-10 of 41

Don’t Judge a Conditional Certification Motion By Its Cover
  • Seyfarth Shaw LLP
  • USA
  • July 2 2018

Seyfarth Synopsis: A New York federal court once again denied a motion for conditional certification of a nationwide collective action against Barnes


Flip-Flops, Not Just For the Beach or Boardwalk: NLRB (Again) Buries Consent Requirement for Bargaining Units with Temps
  • Seyfarth Shaw LLP
  • USA
  • July 14 2016

Overturning decade old precedent, the Board found that temporary workers supplied by a staffing agency may be included in a bargaining unit with


The Supreme Court of Canada Releases its Decision in the CIBC v. Green Trilogy
  • McMillan LLP
  • Canada
  • December 14 2015

The Supreme Court of Canada released its much anticipated decision in the CIBC v. Green trilogy of cases last week (the “Trilogy Decision”). The


Lehman Brothers Bankruptcy Court denies enforcement of triangular setoff provision in safe-harbored contract
  • Allen & Overy LLP
  • USA
  • November 11 2011

On October 4, 2011, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (the Bankruptcy Court) overseeing the liquidation of Lehman Brothers Inc. (LBI) under the Securities Investor Protection Act (SIPA), held that a cross-affiliate setoff provision, otherwise known as a "triangular setoff," in a contract between UBS AG (UBS) and LBI was unenforceable in bankruptcy for lack of mutuality (the UBS Decision), even though the contract fell within the "safe harbor" provisions of Title 11 of the United States Code (the Bankruptcy Code).


Supreme Court trilogy may not be class action trifecta for employers: an examination of Wal-Mart, Concepcion, and Amara
  • Epstein Becker Green
  • USA
  • August 9 2011

In the closing months of its 2010 session, the U.S. Supreme Court issued three highly publicized opinions affecting employment class actions: Wal-Mart Stores Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011) (118 DLR AA-1, 62011); AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion 131 S. Ct. 1740 (2011) (81 DLR AA-1, 42711); and Cigna Corp. v. Amara, 131 S. Ct. 1866 (2011) (94 DLR AA-1, 51611).


The CAFC strengthens divided patent infringement defense
  • Squire Patton Boggs
  • USA
  • March 2 2011

Wrapping up a trilogy of cases refining the rule regarding "joint" or "divided" infringement of method claims, the Federal Circuit recently ruled that a patentee must show an agency or contractual relationship in order for joint liability on patent infringement to exist.


AFACT loses copyright appeal: full federal court finds iiNet did not authorise infringement
  • Davies Collison Cave
  • Australia
  • February 25 2011

In a landmark 2-1 decision (Jagot J dissenting) with three separate judgments, the Full Federal Court yesterday dismissed an appeal against last year's decision that found internet service provider iiNet was not liable for the infringement of copyright by its users.


$300 million overtime class action against CN Rail gets green light
  • Fasken
  • Canada
  • September 9 2010

Michael McCracken's claim against Canadian National Railway (CN) recently got the go ahead to proceed as a class action.


Solo decision completes the trilogy on false marking
  • Venable LLP
  • USA
  • June 30 2010

Earlier this month the Federal Circuit rendered its decision in the Solo Cup case, a closely watched dispute in which the manufacturer of drinking cups faced the threat of millions of dollars in fines because its cups bore numbers for patents that had expired.


“Honest services at risk”
  • Dorsey & Whitney LLP
  • USA
  • March 19 2010

In 1987, with its decision in McNally v. United States, the Supreme Court limited the broad use of one of the federal prosecutors’ main statutes when they decided that “the mail fraud statute clearly protects property rights,it does not refer to the intangible right of the citizenry to good government.”