|
|
|
|
Related Stories
Supreme Court Revisits Money LaunderingBusiness Crimes BulletinOn March 3, 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in the case of Cuellar v. United States. The decision, expected by the end of June, will interpret the “intent to conceal” provision of the federal Anti-Money Laundering statutes.
‘No-Injury’ Consumer Class Actions: A Growing Practice By Plaintiffs and a Potential Response By DefendantsLJN's Product Liability Law & StrategyPlaintiffs’ counsel recently have been changing their tactics in product liability class action litigation. In place of filing traditional injury class actions, they instead have been filing more and more economic “no-injury” class actions, in which the proposed class members seek to recover not for personal injury, but for their alleged economic losses in purchasing a product that is worth “less” than they paid for it because of some alleged defect.
Evaluating e-Discovery Solutions to Reduce Cost and Risk, and Comply with the FRCPLJN's Legal Tech NewsletterThe 2006 changes to the FRCP specifically require that companies ensure all potentially relevant electronically stored information associated with litigation is preserved and protected, with a subset ultimately produced when required. While on the surface this may sound simple, those in the trenches on both sides — legal and IT — have war stories to tell of hard lessons learned.
Court Curtails Forum Shopping: NJ Supreme Court’s Sensient Decision Confirms Recent Trend of Other State CourtsThe Insurance Coverage Law BulletinWhen the New Jersey Supreme Court affirmed the Appellate Division’s decision in Sensient v. Allstate Insurance Company last month, it provided a final seal of approval to what previously had been an ever-expanding scope of jurisdiction over the interpretation of insurance policies relating to possible coverage of environmental remediation within New Jersey’s borders.
Other Compliance Newsletters
The Corporate Counselor Archives
Top Stories
![]() We're sorry. Your computer must be equipped with a browser capable of rendering HTML 4.01 and running JavaScript. In your browser, you must enable JavaScript. In addition, you should enable style sheets.
|
Headlines
Employee Reassignments Under the ADAThe Supreme Court was poised this term to decide an important issue: whether the ADA requires employers to reassign an employee who, due to a disability, can no longer perform the essential functions of his position, to a vacant, equivalent position for which he is qualified or whether the disabled employer must merely permit the employee to compete for such a position with other applicants. Unfortunately, the case of Huber v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. settled after the Supreme Court had granted certiorari to decide this issue, leaving an existing split among the circuits.
How to Manage Your Litigation CostsThis is the first in a series of articles discussing how in-house counsel can better manage litigation matters.
Parent Corporations and Their Subsidiaries' Liabilities: GuidelinesThere are many reasons to insulate parent and sibling entities from known exposure to which a particular subsidiary is subject. These include, in addition to the tort and federal regulations at issue in the Forsythe and Bestfoods cases, mentioned herein, vulnerability to the taxes, regulation and jurisdiction of a state or foreign nation. Protecting against such vulnerabilities are an important task for corporate counsel. This article explains.
Spring-Loading OptionsDelaware courts are beginning to analyze claims concerning the controversial practice of spring-loading options. Spring-loading is the granting of options just prior to the release of favorable company information (in the company’s possession at the time of the grant). The options are granted at a market price on the day of the grant. They are said to be “spring-loaded” because upon release of the favorable news, the stock price is expected to rise and the options would then become “in-the-money.”
Fear and Loathing in PreservationMost in-house counsel know the types of inquiries that should trigger evidence preservation or collection protocols. Once there is reason to believe there will be litigation or investigation, the duty to preserve kicks in immediately. But what’s next?
May Issue in PDF Format
|
| |
|
