This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
The appellate court further referred to the aforementioned international soft law documents on business and human rights, and new binding EU laws on corporate social responsibility and due diligence to conclude that corporations clearly bear responsibilities for human rights, environmental protection and climate change, and that there is a certain (..)
After reviewing the evidence, the court was unable to conclude “beyond reasonable doubt” that the abduction occurred as descsribed. However, the court concluded that the Georgian authorities’ failure to conduct an effective and diligent investigation significantly contributed to the inability to establish the facts.
Recently, a Dutch District Court dealt with a case on the recognition of US courtdecisions on legal parenthood over children born from a high-tech surrogacy trajectory in the US, providing many private international law insights on how to assess such request for recognition.
Under the so-called discovery rule, a claim accrues when “the plaintiff discovers, or with due diligence should have discovered,” the infringing act. That rule enables a diligent plaintiff to raise claims about even very old infringements if he discovered them within the three years prior to suit.
Kulov: The justification and conflict of laws problems of liability of domestic companies by piercing the corporate veil in the light of the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive The Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (EU) No. Such a courtdecision can be recognised in Germany under procedural law.
Well, case law doesn’t anymore, not after today’s Supreme Courtdecision in California Capital Insurance Company v. The decision is an apparent win in particular for defendants in debt collection actions. ” The rule limited a defendant’s remedy to filing an independent equitable action.
Olivera Boskovic, Extraterritoriality and the proposed directive on corporate sustainability due diligence, a recap Tortious actions brought against companies for the violation of human rights and/or environmental damage have raised important issues of jurisdiction and choice of law.
FTC Supreme Courtdecision stripping FTC of its ability to obtain restitution or disgorgement under Section 13(b) of the Federal Trade Commission Act. On Day 2 of the conference, HPM’s Anne Walsh moderated a fascinating conversation about due diligence investigations relating to FDA-regulated industries.
This post is an abridged adaptation of my recent article, Private International Law and Substantive Liability Issues in Tort Litigation against Multinational Companies in the English Courts: Recent UK Supreme CourtDecisions and Post-Brexit Implications in the Journal of Private International Law.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote on behalf of the Court. In reaching its decision, the Court explained that equitable tolling “effectively extends an otherwise discrete limitations period set by Congress” when a litigant diligently pursues his rights but extraordinary circumstances prevent him from bringing a timely action.
In other words, a county official could meticulously comply with her county’s local gratuities rules—say, by declining a $200 gift card but accepting a $100 gift card from a neighbor as thanks for her diligent work on a new park—but still face up to 10 years in federal prison because she accepted a thing of value in connection with an official act.
The author analyses, among other things, courtdecisions in which the distinction between constitutive religious marriage and civil documentation of marriage in Lebanon plays a central role. She also addresses the fact that the possibility of an ordre public violation in legal systems with a division of laws exists on two levels.
Among other things, AEDPA precludes a federal court reviewing a conviction on habeas from considering evidence outside the state-court record if a prisoner or his attorney failed to diligently develop the claim’s factual basis in state court, subject to exceptions not relevant here. In Shinn v. City of St. Badgerow v.
As I noted later, that is a bizarre take since all but one of those decisions were trial courtdecisions. As with prior nominations, I read as many as I could to do due diligence as a legal commentator. None of that matters with today’s hair-triggered commentary. Most deal with insular evidentiary or trial issues.
6] At the colloquium, former Delaware Supreme Court Chief Justice Leo Strine reiterated that corporate fiduciary duties should continue to focus solely on the interests of profits for shareholders. [7] 9] See Iva Lea Aurer, Guest Commentary: An Assessment of the Hague District CourtsDecision in Milieudefensie et al.
The district court found the analysis of greenhouse gas and climate change impacts to be adequate but remanded for consideration of alternatives that did not involve leasing all nominated parcels. The conservation groups’ appeal of the district courtdecision is still pending, with the opening brief due on July 12.
The Klimaatzaak—“climate case”—was brought by an organization of concerned citizens arguing that Belgian law requires the Belgian government’s approach to reducing greenhouse gas emissions to be more aggressive.
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 99,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content