The CFTC's Market Participants Division updated its 2015 FAQs regarding CFTC Rule 4.27 and Form CPO-PQR to reflect the October 2020 adoption of amendments to both the rule and the form.
This story is available exclusively to Insider subscribers. Become an Insider and start reading now.
Real-estate executive Kent Swig unveiled a new cryptocurrency called digau last month.
One of the parties involved in the creation of the coin is Apache Mill Tailings.
Nevada authorities have alleged it tried to sell securities illegally to fund a purported COVID-19 cure.
Kent Swig is a once prominent New York City real-estate executive trying to reinvent his career after a financial meltdown a decade ago.
Gary Wayne Walters is a felon with multiple criminal convictions who is involved in a Nevada company that regulators in that state say tried to illegally raise money for an unproven COVID-19 cure last year.
Personal jurisdiction is perhaps one of the most complicated areas in litigation. Each successive case since International Shoe Co. v. Washington, seems to create more new questions.
The Supreme Court s recent decision in
Ford Motor Co. v. Montana
Eighth Judicial District Court et al. bucks the Court s
recent trend of reversing lower courts approaches to personal
jurisdiction. The Court held that Ford s contacts with the
forum states sufficed to support specific personal jurisdiction in
those states courts over product liability suits brought by
residents of those states stemming from car accidents in the
states. Although Ford did not sell the specific vehicles involved
in the accidents to purchasers in the forum states, it was enough,
according to the Court, that Ford s forum contacts related to the plaintiffs claims under the
ADVERTISEMENT
The Purposeful Availment Test After Ford
Law360 (May 4, 2021, 5:12 PM EDT) The U.S. Supreme Court s most recent personal jurisdiction decision has many product manufacturers worried. In Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial District Court, the court issued an 8-0 decision holding that some companies, like Ford, may be subject to specific jurisdiction in any U.S. forum where a product-related injury occurs regardless of whether the defendant s contacts with the forum were a but for cause of the injury.
Though the court attempted to limit its analysis to the arise out of or relate to prong of the specific jurisdiction test, the decision s reach extends uncomfortably beyond that provision. Of particular.