Podcasts about bank markazi

Let's boogie oogie oogie over to today's legal news.The US Supreme Court heard arguments in a case involving a parody dog toy named "Bad Spaniels," which resembles a Jack Daniel's whiskey bottle. Jack Daniel's is appealing a lower court's ruling that the toy is protected by the First Amendment as an "expressive work," while also raising trademark infringement concerns. The justices were cautious about scrapping the Rogers test, which allows artists to lawfully use another's trademark when it has artistic relevance to their work and would not mislead consumers about its source. Some justices, however, questioned whether the Rogers test struck the right balance between a company's interest in protecting its corporate image against free speech protections. The Biden administration's lawyer urged the justices to adopt the likelihood-of-confusion test, which considers whether the acts would likely cause marketplace confusion, in place of the Rogers test. The decision is expected to be made by the end of June.By way of very brief background on the Rogers test: The Rogers test is a legal test used in trademark law to determine whether the use of a trademark in a creative work, such as a book or movie or dog toy, is protected by the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech. The test was established by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in Rogers v. Grimaldi in 1989 and has since been adopted by other courts. The case centered on a movie, Ginger and Fred, that saw two characters emulating the dancing style of Ginger Rogers and Fred Astaire. Ginger Rogers took umbrage with, among other things, her name being used in the title. Under the Rogers test, a trademark use in a creative work is protected by the First Amendment if it has some artistic relevance to the work and does not explicitly mislead consumers as to the source of the work. This means that if a trademark is used in a creative work in a way that is relevant to the work and not likely to confuse consumers as to its source, the use is protected by the First Amendment.The Rogers test strikes a balance between the interests of trademark owners in protecting their marks and the interests of creators in expressing themselves through their works. It recognizes that the use of trademarks in creative works can be a legitimate form of artistic expression and that trademark law should not be used to restrict such expression unless it would cause consumer confusion or other harm to the trademark owner.U.S. Supreme Court chews on Jack Daniel's fight against parody dog toy  Rogers v. Grimaldi Wikipedia SynopsisThe Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has proposed a new rule, known as the "Click to Cancel" rule, which would require companies to offer online cancellation options that are as easy as the online sign-up process for subscriptions. This proposal would affect various companies, including fitness and media companies, and would also require companies to send reminders before automatic renewals are billed. The FTC's chair, Lina Khan, stated that companies should not be able to manipulate consumers into paying for subscriptions they don't want. The proposal comes as more companies have shifted to a subscription-based business model, creating greater opportunities for mischief. While some companies, such as Netflix, Peloton, and Spotify, already offer easy cancellation options, others, such as cable-television companies and Adobe, make it harder. The subscription market is expected to expand into a $1.5 trillion market by 2025, up from $650 billion in 2020, and the average American spent $273 a month on subscription services in 2021, according to a consulting firm. The proposed rule is the latest from the FTC, which has taken a more aggressive approach under Khan, proposing rules to curb online data collection and ban nationwide non-compete clauses.FTC's ‘Click to Cancel' Rule to Make Quitting Subscriptions Easy FTC aims to making cancelling recurring charges easier with Click to CancelFederal Trade Commission Proposes Rule Provision Making it Easier for Consumers to “Click to Cancel” Recurring Subscriptions and Memberships The US National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) prosecutors in Brooklyn have found merit in charges filed against Amazon by the Amazon Labor Union that the company engaged in illegal union busting. The charges include allegations that Amazon refused to bargain with the union, restricted access to facilities, disciplined a union leader and committed other unfair labor practices. The new allegations stem from a unionization vote at an Amazon warehouse in Staten Island in April 2022, which triggered the company's obligation to negotiate a first contract with workers. In January, an administrative law judge found Amazon guilty of violating federal labor law in its attempt to resist unionization at Staten Island facilities. This is the latest in a string of labor issues at Amazon warehouses across the country. Amazon Faces Labor Board Charges of Illegal Union Busting (1) NLRB Prosecutors Eye Revised Amazon Access Rule A U.S. District Judge in New York has ordered Iran's central bank and a European intermediary, Clearstream Banking SA, to pay $1.68 billion to the families of troops killed in the 1983 bombing of the U.S. Marine Corps barracks in Lebanon. The lawsuit, which was filed by the victims and their families, sought to enforce a judgment against Iran for providing material support to the attackers. Bank Markazi, the Iran central bank, and Clearstream were named in the lawsuit. Clearstream, which is holding the assets in a client account, said that it is considering appealing the decision. Deutsche Boerse AG, Clearstream's parent company, said that it does not view the ruling as increasing the risk from the lawsuit in a way that would require the companies to make financial provisions. The Oct. 23, 1983, bombing at the Marine Corps barracks killed 241 U.S. service members. In 2007, the victims and their families won a $2.65 billion judgment against Iran in federal court over the attack. They sought to seize bond proceeds allegedly owned by Bank Markazi and processed by Clearstream to partially satisfy the court judgment. In January 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned a lower court ruling in the families' favor, and ordered the case to be reconsidered in light of a new law adopted a month earlier as part of the National Defense Authorization Act.U.S. judge orders $1.68 bln payout to families over 1983 Beirut bombing Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

On April 20, 2016, the Supreme Court decided Bank Markazi v. Peterson. The Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act of 2012 makes a designated set of assets available to satisfy the judgments gained in separate actions by victims of terrorist acts sponsored by Iran. Section 8772(a)(2) of the statute requires a court, before allowing execution against these assets, to determine, inter alia, “whether Iran holds equitable title to, or the beneficial interest in, the assets.” Respondents—more than 1,000 victims of Iran-sponsored acts of terrorism, their estate representatives, and surviving family members—hold judgments against Iran and moved for turnover of about $1.75 billion in bond assets held in a New York bank account allegedly owned by Bank Markazi, the Central Bank of Iran. When respondents invoked §8772, Bank Markazi argued that the statute was unconstitutional, contending that Congress had usurped the judicial role by directing a particular result in a pending enforcement proceeding and thereby violating the separation of powers. The District Court disagreed and upheld the statute. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed, and Bank Markazi took its objection to the U.S. Supreme Court. -- By a vote of 6-2, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Second Circuit. Justice Ginsburg delivered the opinion of the Court, which held that Section 8772 does not violate the separation of powers. Justice Ginsburg was joined by Justices Kennedy, Breyer, Alito, and Kagan. Justice Thomas joined the majority opinion in all but Part II-C. Chief Justice Roberts filed a dissenting opinion in which Justice Sotomayor joined. -- To discuss the case, we have Erik Zimmerman, who is an attorney at Robinson, Bradshaw & Hinson, PA.

What do drunk driving, getting fired for speaking your mind and terrorism have in common?  In addition to being things that scare middle-class white people, each of these topics are the subject of this week's episode, which takes a look at the oral arguments in Beylund v. North Dakota on the 4th amendment, the free-speech decision in Heffernan v. City of Patterson, and the Bank Markazi v. Peterson decision regarding the use of Iranian funds to pay off a civil judgment.

This case concerns nearly $2 billion of bonds in which Bank Markazi, the Central Bank of Iran, held an interest in Europe as part of its foreign currency reserves. Plaintiffs, who hold default judgments against Iran, tried to seize the assets. While the case was pending, Congress enacted §502 of the Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act of 2012, 22 U.S.C. §8772. By its terms, that statute applies only to this one case: to “the financial assets that are identified in and the subject of proceedings in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in Peterson et al. v. Islamic Republic of Iran et al. “In order to ensure that Iran is held accountable for paying the judgments,” it provides that, notwithstanding any other state or federal law, the assets “shall be subject to execution” upon only two findings—essentially, that Bank Markazi has a beneficial interest in them and that no one else does. The question presented is:Whether §8772—a statute that effectively directs a particular result in a single pending case—violates the separation of powers.

Part Two of the "Nazim is on Vacation" episodes continues with a conversation about history with Justin, one of the longest-listening fans of the Citizen's Guide podcast.  Brett and Justin discuss a little American history, and include specific references to Bills of Attainder in the Bank Markazi v. Peterson case, the colonization of Puerto Rico in the Puerto Rico v. Sanchez Vital case, and how the Supreme Court views 19th Century Congressional grants of Native American land in the case of Nebraska v. Parker.  Special thanks to DJ Ray for the Serial-esque background music.

On this episode, we review the oral arguments in Bank Markazi v. Peterson, which asks the Supreme Court to resolve whether §502 of the Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act of 2012 directed to “the financial assets that are identified in and the subject of proceedings in New York in Peterson et al. v. Islamic Republic of Iran et al., Case No. 10 Civ. 4518," violates the separation of powers. At stake is nearly $2 billion of bonds of the Central Bank of Iran that plaintiffs are seeking to attach to pay judgments for hundreds of Americans killed in multiple Iran‐sponsored terrorist attacks.

In 2012, Congress passed the Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act, which allowed the Plaintiffs in Bank Markazi v. Peterson to obtain Iranian funds held in New York to satisfy a judgment rendered in U.S. Courts.  This action created a host of issues which are dealt with in this week's episode, including why judgments are the most important part of every civil case, the Court's view on Separation of Powers issues, whether this is a Bill of Attainder and what is a Bill of Attainder.