Section Connection

Business Torts Where Resources Come Together

A Publication of the American Association for Justice formerly Association of Trial Lawyers of America (ATLA®) Vol. 12, No. 1, Fall 2007

INSIDE
We Can Level the Playing
Page 4
New Section
Field in NASD Arbitrations
Members,
Welcome! F or the Business Torts Section,
2007-2008 will be a year of
consolidating successes of years
past and moving on with new
Page 6 initiatives.
Taking the gavel from
AAJ Exchange Immediate Past Chairman Kirk
Litigation Reasonover, I begin my term
with a call to action from all of
Packet
our members to follow up on an
Preview important project that Kirk
began: to get AAJ members to
enroll as arbitrators for the
Page 7 National Association of
Missing a Securities Dealers.
As you know, anyone with a
Must-Read dispute against a stockbroker is
Article from bound by the provisions of the
Last Year’s NASD mandatory arbitration
Newsletters?
Internet-Related Business Torts:
The Rights of Privacy and Publicity
Back Issues of By Gregory Rutchik, San Francisco, Calif.
Business Torts
Section
newsletters can
M ost lawyers have little
time to spend on the
Internet, and fewer have
be found on our thought of potential claims and
Web site at claimants as coming from the
Internet – and I’m not talking
www.justice.org/
about advertising your practice
sections/businesstorts. here. I’m speaking of business
torts related to the right of pri-
vacy and publicity.
MATTHEW A. CARTWRIGHT
MESSAGE FROM THE CHAIR
clause. The current reality f or
individual investors is that no
hope exists for a jury trial. In
practical application, the lack of
a jury trial has generally result-
ed in exactly the kind of tribunal
from which the Founding
Fathers were trying to protect
this country. These arbitrator
panels are composed primarily
of brokers and dealers, not ordi-
nary people who might identify
with the claimant, but industry
insiders who empathize only
Matthew A. Cartwright
with the respondent. There can
be little doubt that in many, orthopedic surgeons.
many of these cases, justice has It does not have to be this
been a victim. Imagine trying a
malpractice case to a jury of continued on Page 2
Even if the tort of false light
is far from your practice, as the
Internet becomes even more
claim and avoid missing a
potential case and maybe even
summary judgment if you
prolific these tips should help attempt to plead one.
you when an Internet-related The individual’s right to be
business tort client comes left alone – the right of privacy
knocking. In the end, you will – is a constitutional right deriv-
be able to identify the differ- ing from the U.S.
ence between a right of privacy
claim and a right of publicity continued on Page 3

A Publication of the American Association for Justice

 Page 2 Vol. 12, No. 1, Fall 2007

From the Chair cont. from Page 1
way. Any AAJ member, not just a
Business Torts Section member, can
become an NASD arbitrator. Through
Kirk’s efforts and the good offices of a
number of important AAJ Governors,
AAJ, notwithstanding its worthy and
longstanding opposition to arbitration
as a format, gave approval for its mem-
bers to become NASD arbitrators. It
was an important first step. Certainly,
our goal is not to appoint arbitrators
who will vote in lockstep for claimants.
AAJ Litigation Groups
It is merely to start leveling the playing
2007-2008
field at these arbitrations. SECTION OFFICERS
Now the task is to promote our goal.
First, as a Section member, you should
Chair
make it your business to enroll as a
Matthew A. Cartwright
NASD arbitration panel member this
Munley Munley & Cartwright, PC
year. The enrollment process is straight-
672 N. River St., Ste. 310
forward. For more information, contact
Wilkes-Barre, PA 18705-1036
AAJ Sections at sections@justice.org.
Phone: 570/824-5599
Once you become a NASD arbitrator, E-mail: mattc@munley.com
you can explain to other AAJ members
how important and easy it is.
AAJ has given us the green light on Chair-Elect
this important project. Let’s go! Colleen Duffy Smith
McManis Faulkner & Morgan
50 W. San Fernando St., #1000
San Jose, CA 95113-2415
Phone: 408/279-8700
E-mail: cduffysmith@mfmlaw.com

. . . in the truest spirit of professional cooperation. Vice Chair

Debra G. Speyer
2 Penn Ctr. #200
Philadelphia, PA 19102-1721
Phone: 215/238-1980
E-mail: debra@wallstreetfraud.com
Correction:

Gregory Alan Rutchik’s contact information was incorrectly stated in the Secretary-Treasurer/Newsletter Editor
Summer 2007 edition. The correct information is: the arts and technology law Gregory Alan Rutchik
group, 3 Embarcadero Center, 6th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94111, T: 415-399- the arts and technology law group
9440, F: 415-399-9444, gregory@rutchik.com. 3 Embarcadero Center, 6th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Phone: 415/399-9440

Contacting AAJ E-mail: gregory@rutchik.com

Immediate Past Chair

AAJ General Numbers Meetings & Conventions, ext. 613 Kirk Reasonover
800/424-2725 or 202/965-3500 www.justice.org/convention
E-mail: conventions@justice.org Reasonover Law Firm
Sections, ext. 290 400 Poydras St., Ste. 1980
www.justice.org/sections AAJ Education, ext. 612 New Orleans, LA 70130
E-mail: sections@justice.org www.justice.org/education Phone: 504-587-1440
E-mail: education@justice.org E-mail: kreasonover@reasonoverolinde.com
Membership, ext. 611
www.justice.org/resources AAJ Exchange, ext. 615 AAJ Sections Staff
E-mail: membership@justice.org www.justice.org/exchange
E-mail: exchange@justice.org Anne-Marie L. Burton Stuart Banashek
Litigation Groups, ext. 306 Director Manager
www.justice.org/litgroups Elliott Brown sections@justice.org
E-mail: litgroups@justice.org Publications Coordinator www.justice.org/Sections

Edward Chester
Administrative Assistant
This Section Newsletter is intended to be a forum of opinion and information pertaining to the interest
of Section members. Unless specifically stated otherwise, its contents reflect the views of authors only,
and should not be interpreted as a statement of the position or policies of AAJ or the Section itself. © 2007, American Association for Justice
formerly Association of Trial Lawyers of America
Published material remains the property of AAJ. No material may be reproduced or used (ATLA®)
out of context without prior approval of, and proper credit to, this Section Newsletter. All rights reserved

A Publication of the American Association for Justice

 Business Torts Section
Privacy and Publicity cont. from Page 1
Constitution’s 4th and 14th
Amendments1 and the state constitu-
tions’ application of those fundamen-
tal amendments. Seeking compensa-
tion against an individual or business
that invades your client’s privacy,
however, requires you to go much fur-
ther.
As you probably know, torts against
your client by an individual are not
dictated by the U.S. Constitution. The
constitutional privacy rights – and the
claims against a government which are
not covered here – are not the same as
the tort law of privacy.2 To seek recov-
ery against an individual’s act against
your client which results in an inva-
sion of privacy or the exploitation of
your client, we must look to common
law.
PRIVACY TORT IN COMMON LAW
Common law in most states sup-
ports the individual’s right to be left
alone from other’s intrusions. We need
not look any further than the infamous
Paris Hilton to understand the claim,
“false light invasion of privacy.”2
Yup, we look to Paris Hilton.
Whether or not you are a fan of the
celebrity, pay close attention to the dif-
ficulty she has in preventing others
from using stolen photos, credit cards,
stories, songs, video, and her other
personal possessions.
While it is true that she obtained a
preliminary injunction against one
defendant in Paris Hilton v. Bardia
Persa, Hilton was forced to file an
amended complaint against six new
defendants in an attempt to remove
her property off the Web. As of this
time, one Web site, parisexposed.net,
the subject of the preliminary injunc-
tion is offline but another, parisex-
posed.com, not the focus of the current
claim, is live.
Hilton’s approach raises a theme in
these types of actions. She filed her
claim in federal court and coupled pri-
vacy claims with infringement claims
based on newly registered copyrights.
It raises the question of whether the
A Publication of the American Association for Justice
Gregory Rutchik
additional copyright claims indicate an
inherent weakness in the privacy
claims.
Clearly the strategy of adding the
copyright claims worked to protect
certain rights of Hilton, and may have
played a significant role in obtaining
first, a temporary restraining order,
and then a preliminary injunction.
Others besides celebrities may also
establish a copyright claim. A major
take away from Hilton’s experience is
for private citizens to consider copy-
right claims as an additional weapon
in their arsenal for protecting broad
personal rights.
Individuals have a right to be left
alone. We’re talking about the right to
be left alone from intrusion by other
individuals and not about the govern-
ment’s intrusion. State laws generally
recognize that an individual may pro-
tect his or her interest in being left
alone from others intruding on their
privacy.3 Rights of privacy have a long
history in California courts and else-
where. While four recognizable causes
of action exist, the trials and tribula-
tions of Paris Hilton demonstrate that
in the Internet age, stopping the prolif-
eration of one’s private information is
extremely difficult and costly. A non-
celebrity can learn from the difficulties
that Hilton, a well-heeled litigant,
faces.
Page 3
FALSE LIGHT INVASION
If an individual intrudes on anoth-
er’s right to be left alone, a claim of
false light invasion of privacy may
exist. This type of claim is well-estab-
lished. A successful claim under false
light invasion of privacy appeals to
what is “highly offensive to a reason-
able person.” Because these standards
are different among the states, plead-
ing this claim can be tricky.
Paris Hilton’s invasion of privacy
claim against the defendant in the pari-
sexposed.net case proved to be a
strong factor in protecting her rights.
The temporary restraining order
issued in February 2007 enjoined dis-
closure of Hilton’s medical and health
information, her social security num-
ber, phone number, addresses, bank
and financial information and photos,
videos, and writings depicting her in a
sexual manner not previously exposed
to public viewing - in a nod to the like-
lihood that Hilton would pursue an
invasion of privacy claim.
The preliminary injunction issued
later that month went even further and
enjoined the disclosure of more infor-
mation without the caveat that it was
not previously exposed to the public.
Hilton’s efforts in establishing this
claim are far from done. Her efforts are
supported by precedent in this area
and reveal that she still has a heavy
rock to push up the hill.
The seminal U.S. Supreme Court
case on the tension between the inva-
sion of privacy and the right of
reporters to report “news” is seen in
Cantrell v. Forest City Publishing Co., 419
U.S. 245 (1974). A mother and her
minor children were ultimately – the
Supreme Court found - successful in
bringing their invasion of privacy
claim and entitled to compensatory
damages because the reporter knew
the information was false and showed
a reckless disregard for the truth.
Truth, whether the item disclosed is
true and its portrayal are not always
the turning point. Rather, the ability to
recover is often tied to the ability to
show that the invasion itself is materi-
continued on Page 4
 Page 4 Vol. 12, No. 1, Fall 2007

Privacy and Publicity cont. from Page 3
al. In Easter Seal Soc For Crippled
Children and Adults of Louisiana, Inc. v.
Playboy Enterprises, Inc., 530 So. 2d 643,
648 (La. Co. App. 4th Cir. 1988), the
“mere appearance” of an individual
captured in a crowd scene of an adult
movie called “Candy the Stripper” that
focused on sex and drugs was insuffi-
cient for that individual to establish a
claim of false light.
The plaintiff’s burden of proof is not
easily met. A transsexual sued a news-
paper for invasion of privacy for pub-
lishing a column that revealed her
then-secret sex change operation. The
trial court in Diaz v. Oakland Tribune,
Inc., 139 Cal. App. 3d 188 (1983),
returned an award for compensatory
and punitive damages but the appel-
late court reversed. The appellate court
found that the trial court held the
newspaper to a high standard to show
“newsworthiness” and found the bur-
den of proof that the article was not
privileged or newsworthy should have
fallen on the plaintiff’s shoulders.
Musicians captured on video when
their stage collapsed, and subsequent-
ly mocked on ABC’s “American
Funniest Home Videos” were able,
after obtaining a reversal of a lower
court’s dismissal, to move forward on
their “well-pleaded general allega-
tion” that must be determined by the
trier of fact.5
Ms. Hilton’s case is reminiscent of
the Hustler Magazine v. Wood case and
the Pamela Lee Anderson sex video
case. See e.g. Wood v. Hustler Magazine,
Inc., 744 F.2d 94 (1984). Hustler Mag.,
Inc. v. Wood, 469 U.S. 1107 (1985).
Certiorii denied; Michaels et al. v. Internet
Entertainment Group, 5 F. Supp. 2d 823
(C.D. Cal 1998).
In Wood, the appellate court
affirmed a jury verdict against Hustler
after a neighbor submitted nude pho-
tos under a forged consent. While the
Wood case speaks to the issue of an
effective consent, it sends a clear mes-
sage that negligent invasion of privacy
is compensable. The Anderson case –
resting in copyright – supported that a
videotape depicting sexual intercourse
was protectable and enforceable.
DISCLOSURE OF PRIVATE FACTS
Although it is true that celebrities
and non-celebrities alike can allege a
claim of appropriation - the impermis-
sible commercial use of one’s identity
causing injury to dignity and self-
esteem and resulting in emotional dis-
tress - it is a difficult claim for non-
celebrities to pursue. In addition,
celebrities who encourage their public
exposure and wide circulation of their
images, may have difficulty establish-
ing damages to their dignity or hurt
feelings.
Thus, in California, injured parties
must take a different tact. Like Hilton
they are often advised to assert claims
of “disclosure of private facts” – a com-
mon law cause of action. Because a
major component is disclosure to the
continued on Page 5

New Section Members, Welcome!

James Andrew McDonaugh Jesse Hersch Kibort Paul B. Overhauser Gilbert Kirk Squires
Lindenhurst NY Plymouth, MN Greenfield, IN Miami Beach, FL

Alan Gabriel Bass Thomas E. Knothe Terance P. Perry D. Shawn Stevens

El Reno, OK La Crosse, WI Missoula, MT Dallas, TX

Mark C. Burgess Christopher V. Langone Francis X. Rapprich Mohammad A. Syed

Texarkana, TX Chicago, IL Orlando, FL Washington, DC

Robert F. Dicello Stephen G. Lowry Seth J. Reidenberg Kristin Diane Wilkinson

Mentor, OH Savannah, GA Wilmington, DE Houston, TX

Barry D. Estell Christopher J. Malone Berton N. Ring Alexander Williamson

Mission, KS Darien, CT Chicago, IL New Orleans, LA

Joseph Gjonola Steve M. Marks Jason J. Rudolph Roger C. Wilson

Los Angeles, CA Baton Rouge, LA Santa Monica, CA Atlanta, GA

Ryan W. Greene Steven H. Meyer John F. Salter

Dallas, TX Boca Raton, FL Marietta, GA

Tim Herron Alfred A. Olinde Joseph D. Satterley

The Woodlands, TX New Orleans, LA Louisville, KY

A Publication of the American Association for Justice

 Business Torts Section
Privacy and Publicity cont. from Page 4
public at large, disclosure via the
Internet almost guarantees that this
element can be met.
Certain celebrities will face chal-
lenges when attempting to establish
that the “facts are not already known
to the public” and that the “disclosure
is highly offensive to a reasonable per-
son of ordinary sensibilities.” Hilton
will have little trouble establishing that
her personal information such as her
medical information and her phone
and bank numbers are unknown to the
public. However, will certain celebri-
ties face more difficulties convincing a
jury that the disclosure of their infor-
mation is highly offensive?
Doesn’t the standard require the
trier of fact to determine whether the
disclosure is highly offensive from the
plaintiff’s perspective? If it isn’t offen-
sive to the plaintiff — and that might
be a tact taken by defendants seeking
to defeat this claim — how could it be
offensive to a juror?
Here are some scenarios that courts
have found NOT to be highly offensive
when disclosed: retirement, religious
affiliation, buying of a new expensive
house, finding and returning a large
sum of money, receiving a certain
salary, passing or failing a test, being
the wealthiest person in town, kissing
a certain rock musician in the stall of a
woman’s toilet.6
On the other hand, here is a list of
things that courts said ARE highly
offensive to a reasonable person:
1) Unpermitted publication in a
national magazine of a nude photo-
graph of the person.
2) Disclosure by employer of a fel-
low employee that she had a hysterec-
tomy or mastectomy.
3) Public disclosure of the plaintiff’s
name on signs carried by protesters
that plaintiff was about to undergo an
abortion.
4) The showing of a surreptitiously
made videotape of plaintiff engaged in
sexual intercourse.
5) The distribution on the Internet of
a video made by plaintiffs of them-
A Publication of the American Association for Justice
selves engaged in sexual conduct.
Will Hilton be entitled to any less
protection due to her history of pub-
lishing intimate details of herself? 4
Should she be?
RIGHT OF PUBLICITY IS ABOUT
MONEY
As Paris Hilton’s case bears out,
there is a likelihood of success in stop-
ping another party from using one’s
likeness, voice or image if in fact they
are doing so to make money. In short,
right of publicity is a property right. It
is about getting compensated for
another’s use of your likeness, voice or
image for money. In fact, California
and many other states have enumerat-
ed the right of publicity under the
unfair competition laws in the
Restatement of Unfair Competition
§46 and the California Civil Code.
While a claim for violation of one’s
right to publicity makes sense for a
celebrity or someone who could turn
their likeness or voice into money, it is
not clear that his claim meets the needs
of a civilian on the street who is hurt by
stolen nude photos. Of course, one
could quickly see a claim for violation of
right of publicity if a hereto now
unknown becomes front page news on a
paid porn site, but this is not the norm.
Clearly, the court in Hilton’s case
agreed with Hilton and preliminary
enjoined the defendant from using her
likeness, image, or other materials for
commercial gain. The problem – as
Hilton’s experience bears out – is that
others are using her image as a result
of the Internet and she will have to
spend additional funds and time in an
attempt to stop them. Even if she does
enjoin some, the offshoring of content
and activities makes it difficult to take
down everything that was taken from
Hilton and used to generate money.
The average individual has as many
quills in their arsenal to fight against
invasions of their privacy as Hilton but
at what cost and effect? It has taken
Hilton more than six months and
unquestionably tens or maybe hun-
dreds of thousands of dollars in legal
fees to stop one defendant. The com-
plaint against two other defendants –
Page 5
the ones who originally sold the Hilton
materials was dismissed without prej-
udice. Even after months of litigating,
the effect of her actions against the
remaining defendants remains unset-
tled. In fact, the court ordered that
another defendant be dismissed unless
Ms. Hilton agrees to be deposed by
September 17, 2007.
The lesson for the rest of us to use:
As private relationships fall apart in
this time of the Internet, online dating
and instant messaging, the courts will
see many more cases under the claims
of invasions of privacy rights. As you
confront litigants and potential clients
with Internet activities, these claims
become very real. They play out in
domestic relations claims and as part
of more business tort practices. The
issue will be difficult for courts to han-
dle as defendants and Web content to
proliferate over the Internet while
plaintiffs bear a heavier and costlier
burden in stopping it.
Notes:
1. Lest we be incomplete, the First, Fourth, Fifth and
Fourteen all provide some protection of privacy.
Although in all cases the right is narrowly defined
and limited to government intrusion. See e.g. Paul v.
David, 424 U.S. 693, 713 (1976).
2. See e.g. Rosenberg v. Martin, 478 F.2d 520, 524
(2d Cir. 1973).
3. Paris Hilton v. Bardia Persa et al; CD. CA Los
Angeles; 2:00-cv-08306-TJH-RZ;
4. Approximately 30 states recognize the tort of false
light invasion of privacy.
5. See Sharrif v. American Broadcasting Company,
13 So. 2d 768 1993.
6. (See McCarthy, page 547).
7. See e.g.
http://www.hollywoodreporteresq.com/thresq/spot-
light/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=100354481
1; “Hilton's suit does not mention that she became
famous -- or infamous -- largely because of the
release on the Internet of an explicit sex tape with
her then-boyfriend, Rick Salomon, on the eve of the
premiere of “Simple Life.” The video received a
pornography industry award in 2005 for best selling
title of the year.”
Gregory Rutchik is newsletter editor for
the Business Torts Section. The arts and
technology Law Group, 3 Embarcadero
Center, 6th Fl., San Francisco, CA 94111,
T: 415/399-9440, gregory@rutchik.com,
www.thepiracylawyer.com. Gregory is
working on a book on litigating right of
privacy and right of publicity claims.
 Page 6
Allstate Automobile Claims
An AAJ Exchange Litigation Packet Preview
A llstate Insurance Company’s slogan
is, “You’re in good hands with
Allstate.” Unfortunately, many have
found their experience with Allstate to
be anything but good.
In the course of an 18-month investi-
gation into minor-impact-soft tissue
injury crashes, CNN found that if you
were injured in a minor accident,
chances were high that Allstate1 would
“challenge your medical claim, offering
you barely a fraction of your expenses.”2
CNN also spoke to one of Allstate’s for-
mer attorneys who said that Allstate’s
strategy is to make fighting the company
“so expensive and so time-consuming
that lawyers would start refusing to help
clients.”3
Protecting one’s clients’ interests in an
Allstate case necessitates a command of
Allstate’s policies and procedures. A large
part of Allstate’s strategy to increase prof-
itability came when they installed a new
claims handling system called Claims
Core Process Redesign (CCPR) in 1995.
The principles within CCPR were devel-
oped by McKinsey & Co.
Allstate’s new approach focused on
the shareholder rather than the policy-
holder. One major emphasis of CCPR
was to pay less on claims by using rigid
standardized methods such as Fast
Track, Colossus, Minor Impact Soft
Tissue (MIST) referrals, Special
Investigative Unit (SIU) referrals and
discouraging legal representation.4 The
result of these and other Allstate proce-
dures on plaintiff’s ability to receive fair
compensation has been dramatic.
An appreciation of Allstate discov-
ery tactics is also essential in any
Allstate case. Plaintiff attorneys are
often faced with numerous objections
to basic requests for production and fre-
quent motions for protective orders by
Allstate. AAJ members have successful-
ly challenged these objections and even
obtained sanctions against Allstate in
some courts. The motions, oppositions,
and orders contained in this Litigation
Packet are intended to assist plaintiff
A Publication of the American Association for Justice
Vol. 12, No. 1, Fall 2007
3. Drew Griffith & Kathleen Johnson, Feb. 9 2007,
attorneys in obtaining meaningful dis-
covery from Allstate.
Whether the claim is based on the
Auto Insurers Play Hardball in Minor-Crash Claims,
http:/www.cnn.com/2007/US/02/09/insurance.hard-
ball/index.html
underlying automobile accident, a bad 4. Affidavit of Shannon L. Brady, former Allstate
faith claim arising therefrom or some Claims Representative, March 10, 2003.
other contractual, common law, or statu-
tory claim, a claim against Allstate pres- This article is an excerpt from an AAJ
ents plaintiff attorneys with challenges Exchange Litigation Packet. Working closely
at every turn—investigation, case filing, with AAJ members, the Exchange develops
discovery, and trial. Litigation Packets, which contain compre-
This Litigation Packet provides plain- hensive, practical material on “hot” litigation
tiff attorneys with an overview of topics and trial advocacy issues. Allstate
Allstate, assists in important discovery Automobile Claims, July 2007; 2,251 pages.
disputes and helps plaintiff attorneys
explore appropriate theories of liability, For a detailed Table of Contents, log onto the
including: Exchange at www.justice.org/exchange, click
• Exploring issues of investigation, on “Litigation Packets,” select “Insurance
negotiation, discovery and theories of Law,” and “View” the packet description. Or
liability call the Exchange at (800) 344-3023.
• Analysis of general claims handling
of automobile bodily injury claims at
Allstate including Claims Core Process
Redesign (CCPR), MIST, Colossus, UM
and UIM claims, Special Investigative
Unit and Allstate’s incentives programs
• Sample court documents: com-
plaints; requests for production;
motions, oppositions and orders regard-
ing protective orders; motions for sanc-
tions against Allstate; depositions of
numerous Allstate employees
• Exploring bad faith and other theo-
ries of liability
• AAJ Education speaker papers
The AAJ Exchange’s new Litigation
Packet, Allstate Automobile Claims
explores claims-handling procedures
and policies at Allstate Insurance. The
packet contains important guidance,
court documents, and depositions pro-
vided by AAJ members with extensive
Allstate claim and litigation experi-
ence—essential tools for anyone han-
dling Allstate automobile cases.
Notes:
1. CNN also found the same to be true for State Farm.
Drew Griffith & Kathleen Johnson, Feb. 9 2007, Auto
Insurers Play Hardball in Minor-Crash Claims,
http:/www.cnn.com/2007/US/02/09/insurance.hard-
ball/index.html
2. Id.
 Business Torts Section Page 7

Missing A Must-Read Article From

Last Year’s Newsletters?
The following articles were published in the 2006-2007 Business Torts Section Newsletters. Catch up on your
reading. Just go to the Section’s Newsletter Archives on the Web: www.justice.org/sections/businesstorts. Or
call 800-424-2725 or 202-965-3500, ext. 381 to find out how.

Vol. 11, No. 1, Fall 2006 Vol. 11, No. 4, Summer 2007
The Chair’s Message - A “Business Torts” The Editor’s Message - Making Request for
Winter in Miami Admissions Your Friend
Kirk Reasonover Gregory Alan Rutchik
X

Pleading Fraud - Exposing the Gritty Details
By Gregory Alan Rutchik, San
Francisco, Calif
An Intellectual Property Primer - Copyright and
Trademark Guidelines for the Business Lawyer
E
The In Pari Delicto Defense in Bankruptcy
Trustee Actions
By Elizabeth Pipkin, San Jose, Calif. and
James C. Ferrell, Houston, Texas
Promissory Note Fraud

By Amy Burke, San Francisco, Calif. By Debra G. Speyer, Philadelphia, Penn.

Vol. 11, No. 2, Winter 2007

The Chair’s Message - Joint Roundtable
Tackles Cutting Edge Business Torts Topics
Kirk Reasonover
D

A Practical Path Towards Better Mediations

By David Lichter, Aventura, Fla.

Equity-Linked Notes: The Sophisticated

Financial Product that may do more Harm
than Good
By Craig McCann, PhD, CFA, Fairfax, Va.
N

Vol. 11, No. 3, Spring 2007

The Action Behind the Scenes of Fixed
Insurance Products
By Vincent Micciche CRCP., Rochester, N.Y.

Seven Steps to Prepare Your Clients for a

I

Catastrophic Computer Attack

By Mauro M. Wolfe, New York, N.Y.

Option Backdating: Important as to Corporate

Integrity, but not Material as to Stock Valuation
By Robert E. Conner, Summit, N.J.

A Publication of the American Association for Justice

Page 8 Vol. 12, No. 1, Fall 2007

AAJ LITIGATION GROUPS

............................................in the truest spirit of collaboration
AAJ Litigation Groups are a critical tool for our members to level the playing field when Examples of AAJ
forced to battle the overwhelming resources of corporate counsel. Litigation Groups are
Litigation Groups:
voluntary networks of AAJ members who share an interest in a particular type of case.
These groups cover a wide and diverse array of cases including Vioxx/Bextra, Nursing • Abusive Tax Shelter
Homes, Inadequate Security, Heart Devices, and Gastric Bypass, to name a few.
• Financial Securities
By capitalizing on the experience of your colleagues who have prepared similar cases you can… and Analysts

• Save time and money by gaining access to knowledge and documents from cases similar to yours. • Telemarketers, Spam
• Avoid pitfalls by uncovering specific strategies from your colleagues. and Junk Faxes
• Reduce the time it takes to prepare a case for trial.
• Structure your discover strategies and arguments toward a favorable verdict or settlement.

AAJ currently supports more than 80 Litigation Groups and

new ones are constantly being added. formerly Association of Trial
Lawyers of America (ATLA®)

Visit www.justice.org/litgroups and find out how you can take advantage of this unique AAJ benefit.

Non-profit Org.
BUSINESS TORTS U.S. Postage

SECTION NEWSLETTER PAID

Permit #1115
Washington, DC
The Leonard M. Ring Law Center
1050 31st Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20007