Julie E. Randolph, Schnader’s Director of New Business Intake and Conflicts Counsel, authored the cover story in DRI’s For the Defense, “Fly Me to the Moon and Let Me Mine an Asteroid: A Primer on Private Entities’ Rights to Outer Space Resources”.
Randolph writes: “This article gives the reader an overview of the issues, documents, and history needed to understand the current debates over private rights to outer space resources. To that end, it will discuss the Outer Space Treaty and other treaties that address property rights in outer space, provide a brief history of United States legislative and executive actions related to commercial space ventures, look at current national and international legislation and views on private property rights in outer space, and provide some insight into the future of extraterrestrial property rights. While this article does not purport to answer whether private companies have property rights in resources in space, it provides resources to assess that question—and others’ answers to the question.”
Click here to read the entire article.
Author: Rehnuma Binte Mamun
Sections 299 and 300 of the Penal Code, 1860, consecutively dealing with culpable homicide and murder, are notoriously known for confusing students, lawyers and judges. These sections are glaring example of legal texts being intricately complex. The demarcation point of the two offences is not discernible here because of the complex wording and construction of the sections. This paper examines the sections with a comparative analysis of the homicide law of the UK and USA to find the demarcation point between murder and culpable homicide in Bangladesh. Finally it attempts at proposing some reforms and/or suggestions to these existing penal provisions regarding the wordings and construction for a more precise and efficient legislation on murder and culpable homicide.
Contact: Kirsten Middleton
A landmark decision was handed down by the Court of Appeal (England and Wales) on 16 February 2017 in respect of beneficiaries using subject access requests under data protection law to obtain information from trustees. The consequences of the decision may result in a new route by which beneficiaries could attempt to gain information in relation to their interests in a trust which would otherwise be subject to the trustee’s discretion.
Individuals can agree that they will not in the future revoke or amend their Wills without the other party’s consent. In contrast, mirror Wills, drafted on identical terms to each other, do not prevent one party from amending their Will either before or after the death of the other. Mutual Wills can restrict the freedom of the surviving Will holder to deal with his own property and the property inherited from the first to die, and for that reason professional advisors will often caution against them.
The case of Legg v Burton
In the recent case of Legg v Burton  EWHC 2088 Ch, the High Court held that a married couple had made mutual Wills.
In July 2000, June Clark (“Mrs Clark”) and her husband, Bernard Clark (“Mr Clark”), signed their Wills (the “July 2000 Wills”) each giving their estate to the surviving spouse or, if the spouse did not survive, to their two daughters, Ann and Lynn, in equal shares.
Mr Clark died in May 2001 and Mrs Clark inherited his entire estate. Following Mr Clark’s death, Mrs Clark went on to sign thirteen separate Wills between the period 2004 and 2014. These Wills dramatically reduced the fraction of the estate bequeathed to her daughters. The last Will made by Mrs Clark was signed in December 2014 (the “2014 Will”) and provided for Ann and Lynn to receive legacies of £10,000 and £30,000 with the residue of Mrs Clark’s estate to pass to her grandchildren.
In the recent case of A Limited FURBS  21/2017, the Guernsey Court held that, in the exceptional circumstances arising, it was appropriate for the trustees to submit to the jurisdiction of the English Court in divorce proceedings involving one of the trust’s beneficiaries.
The case, detailed further below, will provide useful guidance for Isle of Man trustees affected by foreign proceedings.
Similar to the position in Guernsey, the Isle of Man’s trust legislation includes firewall provisions, the purpose of which is to exclude the recognition or enforcement of foreign court orders or judgments that are inconsistent with Isle of Man trust law or the terms of an Isle of Man trust unless the Isle of Man High Court orders that such orders or judgments are to be recognised.