Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Features
This past year has seen a flurry of activity under Executive Order 11246 ('EO 11246'), the law that governs the administration of affirmative action programs of employers that have certain government contracts or subcontracts. In the wake of these new changes, this article offers suggestions of best practices relating to one of the most noteworthy developments for EO 11246 compliance: the 'Internet Applicant' rule, which became effective on Feb. 6, 2006.
Features
The Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act ('USERRA' or the 'Act') tends to be the employment-related statute most frequently placed on the back burner. Of course, this quickly changes when an employee seeks its protection or privileges. When that happens, managers and human resource professionals are often caught behind the eight ball trying to navigate requirements and entitlements of the law.
Features
The author believes that the best e-discovery-review best practices should be characterized as the application of real-life lessons. He believes they are not complicated, and that focusing on a few of these learned lessons with a thoughtful, deliberate approach will achieve a truly effective electronic discovery review.
In Tellabs v. Makor Issues & Rights Ltd. (June 21, 2007), the U.S. Supreme Court offered clarity on the requirement in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (the 'PSLRA') that plaintiffs in securities fraud actions plead with particularity facts giving rise to a 'strong inference' of scienter. There has been some disagreement on the impact of the ruling.
In June 2007, the United States Supreme Court revisited the per se ban on resale price maintenance. In a 5-4 opinion, the Court in <i>Leegin Creative Leather Products v. PSKS, Inc.</i>, overruled nearly a century of precedent, and adopted a 'rule of reason' analysis that allows an alleged violator to attempt to justify price controls. As a result, news reports predicted widespread changes in resale price agreements and a decline in competitive discounts, giving the impression that companies are now free to impose price controls with little or no oversight, without fear of legal consequence, regardless of the specific nature of their products. Is this true?
Third-quarter rundown on legislation of interest.
The latest hot topic in corporate executive abuses may be manipulation of trades under prearranged trading plans established pursuant to Rule 10b5-1. Little has been said about the red flags that could indicate abuse of 10b5-1 plans. This article attempts to offer some practical guidance to corporate counsel to ensure that their 10b5-1 plans steer clear of SEC enforcement scrutiny.
Features
Recent cases in e-commerce law and in the e-commerce industry.
In June, the Supreme Court revisited the per se ban on resale price maintenance. In a 5-4 opinion, the Court, in <i>Leegin Creative Leather Products v. PSKS, Inc.</i>, overruled nearly a century of precedent, and adopted a 'rule of reason' analysis that allows an alleged violator to attempt to justify price controls. As a result, news reports predicted widespread changes in resale price agreements and a decline in competitive discounts, giving the impression that companies are now free to impose price controls with little or no oversight, without fear of legal consequence, regardless of the specific nature of their products. The actual ruling, however, is neither so sweeping nor revolutionary. It is not an endorsement of resale-price controls in every case, or even in most cases. Companies that engage in resale-price maintenance may no longer face a charge of per se illegality, but they must tread extremely carefully in what is still dangerous territory.
It's a basic concept: Civil rights protection is a function of a person's physical location. State courts use their constitutions to expand civil-liberties protections beyond those rights granted by the federal Constitution's Bill of Rights. Across the nation, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, California, Texas, Maine and others have identified additional constitutional protections beyond those in the federal document. Because Internet transactions transcend state boundaries, however, states might be restrained from applying such additional protections to Internet transactions.
