Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Internet Disclosures Can Cost Your Company
Answer: The Internet and the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX). Question: What two powerful forces are generating a whole new world of liability for companies and their directors and officers?
It is unlikely that this answer-and-question combo will ever appear on the popular TV quiz show Jeopardy. But the reality is that as the Internet opens pathways to doing business that could scarcely be imagined a decade ago, it also presents increasing dangers to public companies in the form of new liability risks. The instantaneous nature of the Internet can be both boon and bane to companies seeking to harness it to provide information to, and create goodwill with, shareholders. Not only can information be disseminated over the Net in a fraction of a second for worldwide viewing, but it has become a predominant source of investment news. Financial updates, product developments, information tidbits, even rumors ' all are now posted 24/7 on the Web for consumption by anyone, including investors who are poised to take advantage of the latest intelligence.
It doesn't take much imagination to see how this modern communications wonder spins a web of potential liability for companies, especially in light of SOX. Since information is continuously available for as long as it remains posted on the Internet, the danger that investors will misinterpret outdated information as being current is constant. And since anyone can post corporate information, the truthfulness of that information is hardly guaranteed. Furthermore, like moths to a flame, lawmakers are now directing their attention to the Internet. All of these things, combined with the rapid evolution of securities laws, means companies must work extra hard to keep up and to comply. Those companies that don't keep up may be 'rewarded' with a class-action lawsuit alleging misrepresentation, delayed or misleading disclosures, or other corporate wrongdoings.
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.