The composition of the modern corporate board has evolved into a complex and sophisticated governing body that places increasing demands on the lawyers. In the post Enron and Sarbanes-Oxley world, corporate boards continue to be comprised of directors with their own myriad personal and business agendas. These boards, however, have also become more mindful and responsive to watchdog agencies, and have a renewed focus on board independence, financial expertise and diversity. There is, therefore, an increased need for adaptable, experienced, and informed lawyers ' both in house as well as outside a given company ' to counsel the board and its members on these and other controversial issues. The best practices for doing so, including those addressing how to better understand the client board's structure, culture and goals, as well as the board member's personal concerns, is the subject of this piece.
We have all run into a situation where an existing or potential client has outlined a deal management wants to do (or, in some cases, has already done), which meets the legal definition of a franchise, but the client is adamant about avoiding the real or perceived burdens of being deemed a franchisor. Establishing a franchise system may require, among other things, compliance with franchise sales laws, public disclosure of financial statements, observing contractual limitations imposed by franchise relationship laws, and enduring the public image of being a franchise. There are a variety of distribution models other than franchising available to clients for structuring envisioned expansion. However, if certain elements are involved in the proposed transaction, creation of a franchise system may become legally necessary. This article addresses the issues practitioners face in advising clients in these scenarios and explores some of the various alternatives to the franchise model and exemptions from franchise disclosure law that are available to your clients.
A majority of courts consider the <i>contra proferentem</i> doctrine to be a pillar of insurance law. The doctrine requires ambiguous terms in an insurance policy to be construed against the insurer and in favor of coverage for the insured. A prominent rationale behind the doctrine is that insurance policies are usually standard-form contracts drafted entirely by insurers.
Active reading comprises many daily tasks lawyers engage in, including highlighting, annotating, note taking, comparing and searching texts. It demands more than flipping or turning pages.
Like poorly-behaved school children, new technologies and intellectual property (IP) are increasingly disrupting the M&A establishment. Cybersecurity has become the latest disruptive newcomer to the M&A party.
In an effort to minimize the release of toxic gasses from cables in the event of fire, the 2002 version of the National Electric Code ("NEC"), promulgated by the National Fire Protection Association, sets forth new guidelines requiring that abandoned cables must be removed from buildings unless they are located in metal raceways or tagged "For Future Use." While the NEC is not, in itself, binding law, most jurisdictions in the United States adopt the NEC by reference in their state or local building and fire codes. Thus, noncompliance with the recent NEC guidelines will likely mean that a building is in violation of a building or fire code. If so, the building owner may also be in breach of agreements with tenants and lenders and may be jeopardizing its fire insurance coverage. Even in jurisdictions where the 2002 NEC has not been adopted, it may be argued that the guidelines represent the standard of reasonable care and could result in tort liability for the landlord if toxic gasses from abandoned cables are emitted in a fire. With these potential liabilities in mind, this article discusses: 1) how to address the abandoned wires and cables currently located within the risers, ceilings and other areas of properties, and 2) additional considerations in the placement and removal of telecommunications cables going forward.
In a recent case from the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, In re Paragon Offshore PLC, the bankruptcy court provided guidance on whether a post-plan effective date litigation trust's distributions constituted disbursements subject to the U.S. Trustee fee "tax."
