Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Is 'Culture' Part of Counsel's Job?
Corporate counsels' ethical obligations are primarily seen as directing the corporation to comply with the Sarbanes Oxley Act (SOX) and the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. Typically, the more amorphous concept of corporate 'culture' has been left to the auspices of human resources. New empirical evidence suggests that corporate culture plays a defining role in whether an organization conducts business in an ethical manner and that corporate counsel need to be part of assessing and changing that culture, when necessary.
After the fall of Enron and other ethical scandals, most corporations enacted a code of conduct and distributed it to their employees. Some corporations have undertaken costly internal audits by ethics experts. Corporate counsel have instituted elaborate compliance programs, auditing committees and review boards. So why are corporate ethical violations still in the news everyday? What role can and should corporate counsel play to ensure a corporation doesn't see itself in the headlines for ethics violations?
Fundamentally, despite many corporate counsels' various good faith efforts, very few organizations have actually changed their inherent business culture to be one where ethical violations of any kind are simply not tolerated. This change can only come from the top down and must actively involve employees at all levels of the organization, with corporate counsel leading the charge.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
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.