South Carolina Business Law Blog

Explaining these issues is currently beyond the ken of this blog. But not for the folks on the Lawyer2Lawyer Podcast on the Legal Talk Network . I have discussed the benefits of podcasts for attorneys here and here over at the Practice and Productivity Blog , and Lswyer2Lawyer is an excellent example. This podcast episode features Mike Koehler , Assistant Professor of Business Law at Butler University and Jane E. Kirtley , the Silha Professor of Media Ethics and Law at the School of Journalism and Mass Communication at the University of Minnesota . Along with co-host, Bob Ambrogi , these professors discuss "the legal issues including charges, privacy rights, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act , the scandal’s impact on journalism and the fate of the Murdoch news empire." Worth a listen, as are many of the podcast epidodes these folks do.

By Shaun Blake An Offer of Judgment may provide a litigant facing some exposure to a claim with cost-shifting leverage in aid of a potential resolution. However, the failure to “precisely draft” an Offer of Judgment can result in harsh consequences. Rule 68: An Overview of the Federal and State Rules In both South Carolina state court and in federal court, a litigant defending a claim can make an Offer of Judgment, before or after liability is determined, by allowing the claimant the chance to accept some judgment on specified terms. In federal court, the litigant may serve the claimant with the Offer, and the claimant has 14 days after service of the Offer to accept it in writing. In South Carolina state court, the rules require the Offer to be filed and served and allow the claimant 20 days to accept the Offer by filing an acceptance with the Court. The advantage of an Offer of Judgment is that, if the claimant rejects the Offer and ultimately fails to recover an amount le

The North Carolina Business Litigation Report has a great post about two United States Supreme Court decisions issued late last month and addressing for the first time in decades the issue of personal jurisdiction. In J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. v. Nicastro and Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown , the Court turned its attention to the question of what constitutes "purposeful availment" sufficent to subject a foreign entity to the personal jurisdiction of a state. The University of South Carolina Law Review is going to hold a symposium on October 13th and 14th to consider the impact of these two cases going forward. Details here .