PLI's inSecurities Podcast - How much in disgorgement!?
JONES DAY TALKS®: Consumer Protection Enforcement Changes Likely After SCOTUS AMG Decision
KT Sound Bytes Episode 1 | The Effects of the Supreme Court Decision in Liu v. SEC
Episode 160 -- A Deep Dive into the Herbalife FCPA Settlement
Investment Management Roundtable Discussion – Regulatory and Enforcement Update
FCPA Compliance Report-Episode 346, Mike Skopets on Miller’s Summer 2017 FCPA Report
This Week in FCPA-Episode 56
FCPA Compliance Report-Episode 332 Marc Bohn on the Kokesh Decision
FCPA Compliance and Ethics Report-Episode 145-SEC Enforcement of the FCPA, Part II
FCPA Compliance and Ethics Report-Episode 30-Interview with the FCPA Professor-Part 2
The Supreme Court vacates a decision treating a company and its affiliates as "one and the same" for purposes of disgorging profits for trademark infringement under the Lanham Act, but leaves many questions unaddressed....more
On February 26, 2025, the US Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision limiting the scope of an award of the “defendant’s profits” in trademark infringement suits under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §1117(a), to only those...more
The Supreme Court on February 26, 2025, overturned a nearly $43 million award granted in a decades long trademark dispute between two real estate companies. The unanimous ruling emphasized that under the Lanham Act section...more
On February 26, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously vacated a nearly $43 million award in a trademark dispute that raised the question of whether a defendant’s affiliates could be held liable for payment of a disgorged...more
The principle of “corporate separateness” – the idea that corporations are separate juridical entities and that stock ownership generally “will not create liability beyond the assets of the [corporation]” – is “deeply...more
In a potential shakeup for corporate liability, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument this year on whether a real estate developer’s corporate affiliates should be responsible for a $46.6 million trademark infringement...more