
Publication
Blockchain law: Can there be law without people?
Robert Schwinger takes a deep dive into the issue of legal responsibility when dealing with “smart contracts.”
We use cookies and other similar technology to collect data about you to allow us to deliver our online services, measure our website audience and improve your browsing experience. Full details on the cookies we use are set out in our Cookies policy. Please click OK to signify your consent to our use of cookies.
You can withdraw your consent by clicking “manage cookies” and following the instructions shown.
In pari delicto is a centuries-old doctrine that prevents courts from intervening to resolve disputes between two wrongdoers. Rooted in principles of equity, in pari delicto acts as an affirmative defense to deny relief to an injured party where both parties are equally at fault. As explained by the Court of Appeals, the doctrine serves two important public policy purposes: (1) deterring illegality by denying judicial relief to an admitted wrongdoer and (2) deterring courts from involving themselves in cases between two wrongdoers. Kirschner v. KPMG LLP, 15 N.Y.3d 446, 464 (2010).
New York courts are often tasked with determining the application of the in pari delicto defense to acts committed by a corporation's agent. Corporations act through their officers and agents and, when those agents commit bad acts or fraud, those bad acts can be imputed to the corporation, regardless of whether those acts are authorized or known by the corporation. See id. at 465-66. The adverse interest exception to this fundamental agency principle prevents an agent's acts from being imputed to the corporation and, thus, bars the application of the in pari delicto defense.
Publication
Robert Schwinger takes a deep dive into the issue of legal responsibility when dealing with “smart contracts.”
Publication
With the FTC's renewed enforcement of the RPA underway, businesses should be mindful of RPA's prohibitions on pricing discrimination.
Publication
The Supreme Court granted petitions for certiorari in two cases, to address one of the most debated subjects in False Claims Act liability jurisprudence since the Court’s decision in Universal Health Services, Inc. v. Escobar in 2016.
Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest legal news, information and events...
© Norton Rose Fulbright LLP 2023