Derivative action or derivative claim meaning

Tianrui (International) Holding Company v China Shanshui Cement Group (Cayman Islands) [2024] UKPC 36 What are the practical implications of this case? The Privy Council has now articulated the juridical basis on which a shareholder may bring a personal claim to hold a board to the company’s constitution, without resort to a derivative action, following an allotment of shares. As the judgment explains (paras [3]–[4]), authorities of the highest level — from the Privy Council, the UK Supreme Court, the High Court of Australia and other appellate courts — have long recognised that shareholders may proceed personally to contest such allotments, rather than by derivative action on the company’s behalf, notwithstanding that the directors’ duty to exercise the power of allotment for proper purposes is owed to the company alone, not to shareholders individually. Although that personal standing had rarely been doubted, the precise juridical rationale had seldom been determined or even closely discussed; this decision supplies the explanation...

The artists' complaint Filed in California federal court on 3 May 2024, the artists’ lawsuit focuses on Imagen, a text‑to‑image diffusion system that employs machine learning to create pictures from user prompts. Comparable legal actions have been brought against other artificial intelligence (AI) firms, this appears to be the first aimed at Google LLC’s iteration, their counsel told Law360 on 29 April 2024. Matthew Butterick, one of the solicitors for the artists, stated on 29 April 2024 that the pleading outlines another episode of a multi‑trillion‑dollar technology giant opting to train a commercial AI tool on others’ copyrighted material without consent, attribution or payment. The claim asserts that Imagen is trained by duplicating an enormous volume of digital images and extracting protected expression from those works. The artists said it relies on a dataset assembled by the non‑profit Large‑scale Artificial Intelligence Open Network, or LAION. They added: during model training, the images in the dataset are copied in their entirety and wholly absorbed by the system, such that protected...

Both organisations said the amended claim introduced fresh and additional accusations and widened the overall breadth of the authors’ case and claims, and OpenAI contended that whereas the authors had previously asserted only that infringement arose from their works being fed into OpenAI’s large language model, they now contend that ChatGPT’s outputs also ground infringement. In a motion to dismiss dated 14 July 2025, OpenAI said the authors’ theory had ‘radically changed’ and that they had walked back earlier statements to the court indicating a primary focus on the input side of the process. ‘Plaintiffs allege that even outputs comprising “summaries” of text “are themselves derivative works, ineluctably based on original unlawful copied work”,’ the filing stated. ‘But the accusations concerning outputs effectively stop there. The complaint does not attach or even quote a single sentence from any supposed infringing output; nor does it give any meaningful account of what those outputs contain, let alone how their contents are substantially similar to any protected expression in plaintiffs’ work’. OpenAI argued...

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note is archived and is no longer maintained. It is provided for background information only. The Industry Code The Finance Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) maintains two Codes of Arbitration Procedure. One is the Code of Arbitration Procedure for Industry Disputes (the Industry Code), which regulates arbitrations among industry participants. For guidance on starting an arbitration under the other code, the Code of Arbitration Procedure for Customer Disputes (the Customer Code), refer to Practice Note: FINRA—commencing an arbitration under the Customer Code [Archived]. Starting an arbitration When an industry dispute occurs, FINRA arbitration will be compulsory in certain situations. In other instances, the parties may decide to arbitrate a dispute under the Industry Code. In every case, a claim must be submitted within six years of the events that gave rise to the dispute (the Industry Code, Pt II, r 13206). Per the Industry Code, Pt II, r 13200, FINRA arbitration must proceed where: the dispute stems from the...

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note is archived and no longer updated. It is provided for background reference only. The Customer Code The Finance Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) maintains two Codes of Arbitration Procedure. One is the Code of Arbitration Procedure for Customer Disputes (the Customer Code), which oversees arbitrations between investors and industry participants. For details on starting an arbitration under the alternative code, the Code of Arbitration Procedure for Industry Disputes (the Industry Code), see Practice Note: FINRA—commencing an arbitration under the Industry Code. Starting an arbitration When an investor dispute occurs, FINRA arbitration will be obligatory in defined scenarios. In other situations, the parties may choose to arbitrate under the Customer Code. In every case, claims must be brought within six years of the events underpinning the dispute (the Customer Code, Pt II, r 12206). Under the Customer Code, Pt II, r 12200, FINRA arbitration must take place where: a FINRA arbitration is mandated by a written agreement or is requested by...

ARCHIVED : This archived Practice Note compiles major dispute resolution (DR) appeals and notable appellate rulings in general civil litigation in England and Wales from 2024 to date. It also highlights key forthcoming appeal matters (to support horizon scanning) together with reported judgments delivered in the Supreme Court, Court of Appeal, Competition Appeal Tribunal, Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (the Privy Council), Court of Justice of the European Union (Court of Justice), and the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). Links are provided to the judgment and any bespoke News Analysis to aid understanding of the principles engaged and the impact of the decisions. It is not maintained and is offered for background use only. For details of key DR appeals from 2025 to date, see Practice Note: Dispute resolution: key appeal cases—2025 [Archived]. This Practice Note has two parts intended to help dispute resolution practitioners remain informed about developments in case law affecting their practice, or civil litigation procedure more generally: selected forthcoming...