LJN Newsletters

The use of mandatory arbitration provisions in employment contracts has grown in recent years as employers seek to avoid what is perceived as 'time-consuming' and 'costly' litigation in state or federal courts. Of course, whether or not arbitration actually saves time or money is an issue open for debate. One only has to receive the pre-hearing invoice from three panelists at $500 per hour to question the latter benefit.

Part One of this article described the background, key provisions and legal challenges to the 'No-Match' regulations. The conclusion herein offers strategies for employers.

Most standard employment agreements and personnel policies include provisions that condition the receipt of certain benefits or trigger certain disciplinary actions on the basis of 'good cause' or 'cause.' Many employers believe that since they make the first call as to whether cause exists, that is the final call. However, as demonstrated by the jury verdict in a recent Maryland trial, it is the jury, not the employer, that gets to make the final call as to whether cause exists.

While Revlon, Inc. v. MacAndrews & Forbes Holdings, Inc., 506 A.2d 173,184 (Del. 1986) places paramount importance on directors' duty to seek the highest sale price once the board of directors determines their corporation is for sale, the fact that plaintiffs simply point to a less-than-ideal purchase price is not sufficient under Delaware law to trigger heightened scrutiny of the directors' actions during the sale process.

Microsoft's recent decision not to appeal the landmark ruling of the European Court of First Instance (CFI) regarding anti-competitive practices provides an opportunity for reflection and analysis. An assessment of the Microsoft saga for technology and other IP-rich businesses depends upon a clear understanding of what the European Commission and the CFI decided and, perhaps even more importantly, what they did not decide.

Senior executives realize that they do not know how to change the firm's ability to execute their business plan and at some point search for some way to devise a successful plan that the current organization can implement. It is often unrecognized that the source of the disappointing performance is the corporation's failure to execute its current strategy.

On Jan. 15, 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its decision in Stoneridge Investment Partners v. Scientific Atlanta, the case that has been called 'the most important securities law case to reach the Court this decade' and 'the securities lawyer's Roe v. Wade.' While the case had both domestic and international corporations concerned about its potential to dramatically expand the scope of 10b-5 claims in order to target third parties doing business with public companies that concern can now be laid to rest.

How can a board discharge its fiduciary duties without waiving otherwise applicable privileges to the investigation and opening the door to discovery of investigation related materials by the government or by third party litigation adversaries? An analysis of recent rulings.