Innhold levert av Mayer Brown. Alt podcastinnhold, inkludert episoder, grafikk og podcastbeskrivelser, lastes opp og leveres direkte av Mayer Brown eller deres podcastplattformpartner. Hvis du tror at noen bruker det opphavsrettsbeskyttede verket ditt uten din tillatelse, kan du følge prosessen skissert her https://no.player.fm/legal.
Player FM - Podcast-app Gå frakoblet med Player FM -appen!
"It is a scientific fact that these macaques, like all other primates, including humans, are communicating. They communicate in much the same way we do - facial expressions, vocalizations, body postures, those kinds of things." - Jeff Kerr Jeff Kerr is PETA foundations Chief Legal Officer. I asked him to come on the show to talk about one of PETA’s current lawsuits against the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and Nathional Institute of Mental Health (NIMH). PETA is arguing that the monkeys being tested on in a government run facility are capable of communication (or “are communicating”). And that we have a constitutional right under the First Amendment to receive their communications. This could be a game changer in allowing us to see what’s really going on in labs that are funded by taxpayer money, and which have so far been censored from public view. PETA’s lawsuit follows years of NIH’s attempts to deny Freedom of Information requests banning PETA executives from its campus and illegally censoring animal advocates’ speech on NIH’s public social media pages. Through the lawsuit, PETA is seeking a live audio-visual feed to see and hear real-time communications from the macaques who have been kept isolated, used in fear experiments, and had posts cemented into their heads. Anthropologists and other scientists have studied macaque and other primate communications for decades and know that the monkeys communicate effectively and intentionally through lip smacking, fear grimaces, body language, and various cries and sounds—all of which constitute speech under the law. Primatologists can analyze that speech on a deeper level to share their stories with the world.…
Innhold levert av Mayer Brown. Alt podcastinnhold, inkludert episoder, grafikk og podcastbeskrivelser, lastes opp og leveres direkte av Mayer Brown eller deres podcastplattformpartner. Hvis du tror at noen bruker det opphavsrettsbeskyttede verket ditt uten din tillatelse, kan du følge prosessen skissert her https://no.player.fm/legal.
The Mayer Brown London Litigation and Dispute Resolution team discuss recent developments in financial litigation, and what they mean for those advising banks and other financial institutions. Time spent listening to this podcast can count towards solicitors CPD requirements. Please contact us if you require further information.
Innhold levert av Mayer Brown. Alt podcastinnhold, inkludert episoder, grafikk og podcastbeskrivelser, lastes opp og leveres direkte av Mayer Brown eller deres podcastplattformpartner. Hvis du tror at noen bruker det opphavsrettsbeskyttede verket ditt uten din tillatelse, kan du følge prosessen skissert her https://no.player.fm/legal.
The Mayer Brown London Litigation and Dispute Resolution team discuss recent developments in financial litigation, and what they mean for those advising banks and other financial institutions. Time spent listening to this podcast can count towards solicitors CPD requirements. Please contact us if you require further information.
Second thoughts: in this month’s podcast Ed Sautter looks at a customer’s unsuccessful attempt to revisit an agreement with his bank settling a swaps claim.
Breaking up is hard to do: in this month's podcast, Ed Sautter examines a borrower's attempt to challenge a lender's rights to recover hedging break costs on early repayment. .
No penalty awarded. In this month's podcast, Ed Sautter looks at a Court of Appeal case on penalties in the aftermath of Makdessi and reflects on another rebuff for Class X noteholders.
X Ray Spex- this month Ed Sautter discusses a CMBS case which analyses the entitlement to interest of a Class X noteholder and he revisits issues of rating agency confirmation, this time in the context of swap agreements.
ISDA wording in court again; this month Ed Sautter looks at the Court of Appeal decision in Goldman Sachs v Videocon and also an interesting case concerning contractual interpretation and rectification in the ISDA context.
Goody bag: this month Ed Sautter looks at another securitisation case, notes the first EMEA ISDA External Review Panel decision, reviews some further privilege decisions in the PAG/RBS litigation and considers the implications of the first High Court approval of predictive coding in disclosure.
Please release me: This month Ed Sautter discusses how Lloyds Bank persuaded the Court of Appeal to permit it to redeem some expensive capital notes and how this case demonstrates the continued challenges of contractual interpretation.
What are you implying? This month Ed Sautter looks at the recent Supreme Court decision on implied terms and its relevance to finance documents, considers a further unsuccessful attempt to turn a mis-selling case into an advice case and analyses the requirements for bringing an action for breach of statutory duty under FSMA.…
Penalty shootout: in this month's podcast, Ed Sautter looks at a Supreme Court decision re-addressing the rules on penalties, notes a favourable development for banks defending negligent advice claims, and considers a judgment concerning legal privilege in the context of investigations.
Follow the money: this month Ed Sautter looks at how banks chasing mistaken payments got some further ammunition and how backward tracing was successfully invoked in order to pursue the proceeds of bribes from Brazil to the Channel Islands.
In this episode, Ed Sautter compares and contrasts the judicial approach in two recent CMBS servicer appointment disputes and also describes the forthcoming High Court Financial List initiative.
In the fourth episode in our series, Ed Sautter, a partner in the Litigation and Dispute Resolution practice in London, explores how losses are calculated under ISDA documentation.
In the third episode in our series, Ed Sautter, a partner in the Litigation and Dispute Resolution practice in London, explores advisory duties in banking relationships and comments on the challenges facing parties who seek to establish the existence and breach of duties to advise.
Velkommen til Player FM!
Player FM scanner netter for høykvalitets podcaster som du kan nyte nå. Det er den beste podcastappen og fungerer på Android, iPhone og internett. Registrer deg for å synkronisere abonnement på flere enheter.
Bli med på verdens beste podcastapp for å håndtere dine favorittserier online og spill dem av offline på vår Android og iOS-apper. Det er gratis og enkelt!