Features
James T. Mayer
&
Jonathan E. Furr
Every successful entrepreneur understands that you must know your audience before making a business pitch. This same cardinal business rule applies to commercial office developments and renovations; a developer or owner interested in pursuing a green building project needs to be prepared to justify the green rationale to different audiences having a stake in the project. Investors and lenders will want to know how the green components impact development and operational costs. Prospective tenants will have an entirely different focus — they will want to know how the green features will enhance the company's image or impact employees' use of the space.
Features
Prashant Dubey
With the amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP), precedent-setting adverse sanctions against some of the largest corporations and growing regulatory requirements, the need to become 'litigation ready' has been like a large snowball, gaining mass and momentum. The indisputable need to become litigation ready has arrived, and the snowball continues to get bigger and faster as it heads down the mountain. With the FRCP amendments, Dec. 1 has come and gone and guess what? Nothing has exploded.
Features
ALM Staff
&
Law Journal Newsletters
In-depth analysis of important verdicts.
Features
ALM Staff
&
Law Journal Newsletters
Discussion of important cases.
Features
ALM Staff
&
Law Journal Newsletters
Key cases of importance.
Features
Stanley S. Arkin
&
Barrett N. Prinz
In the wake of the demise of Arthur Andersen following the partnerships' indictment by the federal government, prosecutors are increasingly pressuring corporations to enter into deferred-prosecution agreements (DPAs) to avoid ' at least temporarily ' full-blown criminal prosecutions. While these agreements may seem to offer an attractive option to embattled companies faced with the prospect of a lengthy and potentially devastating criminal prosecution, the freedom with which the individual prosecutors operate when crafting the agreements should cause concern.
Features
Jacqueline C. Wolff
&
Pamela Sawhney
<i>' ' [A]lthough nothing is off the table when you voluntarily disclose, I can tell you in unequivocal terms that you will get a real benefit ' '</i> Despite these heartening words by Assistant U.S. Attorney General Alice S. Fisher at a recent conference on the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), an attorney representing a corporation cannot recommend voluntary disclosure of potentially criminal FCPA activities without weighing the promise of a 'real benefit' against the very real risks.
Features
Robert W. Tarun
The Department of Justice (DOJ), in the wake of increasing criticism of its policies on waiver of privileges by corporations and their advancement of legal fees to employees under investigation, issued a 21-page memorandum on Dec. 12, 2006, revising the 'Principles of Federal Prosecution of Business Corporations,' alias the Thompson Memorandum. The revised policy, embodied in a memorandum by Deputy Attorney General Paul D. McNulty, comes close on the heels of two influential attacks on the Thompson Memorandum: a bill sponsored by Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) that would prohibit prosecutors from pressing companies to waive privileges or cut off legal fees, and an opinion by Manhattan U. S. District Judge Lewis A. Kaplan, holding that prosecutors had violated the constitutional rights of former KPMG partners when they pressured KPMG to stop paying the ex-partners' lawyers.
Features
Michael L. Cook
&
Lawrence V. Gelber
A Delaware bankruptcy court held on Nov. 16 that a secured lender with a $128 million claim could credit bid at a judicial sale of a Chapter 11 debtor's assets, after dismissing the expansive complaint filed against the lender by the creditors' committee in the debtor's case (claims for recharacterization of debt as equity; equitable subordination; breach of fiduciary duty; invalid loans; voidable liens; and preference liability).
Features
Jonathan Moskin
The recent decision, <i>Fuji Kogyo Co. v. Pacific Bay Int'l, Inc.</i>, 461 F.3d 675 (6th Cir. 2006), confronts the question deliberately left unresolved in <i>TrafFix Devices, Inc. v. Marketing Displays, Inc.</i>, 532 U.S. 23 (2001), of whether a product design claimed in a prior utility patent can ever be protectable trade dress under the Lanham Act. Although setting a high bar to protectability, indeed a 'presumption' and 'heavy burden' that material claimed in a utility patent is functional and hence unprotectable once the patent term ends, the Supreme Court, of course, expressly elected not to foreclose such protection entirely. Thus, it refused the invitation of defendant TrafFix, and 'some of its amici,' to rule that 'the Patent Clause of the Constitution, Art. I '8, cl. 8, of its own force, prohibits the holder of an expired utility patent from claiming trade dress protection.' 532 U.S. at 35. Without itself addressing the constitutional question of how narrowly 'limited times' means 'limited times,' <i>Fuji Kogyo</i> does nothing to ease the burden in establishing trade dress protection for once-patented subject matter; it offers as well a new (if, perhaps, less than fully developed) analytical approach for applying the <i>TrafFix</i> presumption, asking whether the claimed trade dress would have infringed the expired patents.
