Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Climate change? Sustainable development? Greenhouse gases? Global warming? Traditionally, these concepts conjured up tree hugger-led environmental activists' warnings of the Earth's doom resulting from industrial fallout and natural resource use and misuse. Today, these hotly debated, frequently misunderstood scientific theories more often are the subject of critical analysis in corporate boardrooms, among business management and between leading U.S. CEOs. Despite some conflicting reports on the true effects of greenhouse gas emissions and other industrial-related impacts, all agree that the Earth's climate is warmer and continues to heat up annually. No consensus exists as to what can or should be done, how it shall be accomplished or by whom.
A long accepted and familiar concept in Anglo-Saxon countries, whistleblowing, for cultural and historical reasons, has proven to be a rather unwelcome legal obligation. France's total opposition to whistleblowing has softened over time and has been accompanied by a greater understanding and appreciation of its implications. Nevertheless, strong pervasive principles of French law continue to govern this domain.
Antitrust practitioners and companies worried about antitrust prosecution are weighing the significance of <i>Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. United States</i>, 442 F.3d 177 (3d Cir. 2006), which held that the Department of Justice (DOJ) could still prosecute a company after it had been accepted into the Antitrust Division's Corporate Leniency Program. Under the Program, adopted in 1993, a company engaged in antitrust violations that qualifies for leniency will not be prosecuted, provided that it confesses its wrongdoing, agrees to cooperate in an investigation of co-conspirators, and makes restitution to victims of its illegal conduct. The Program offers protection from both criminal prosecution and treble damages in subsequent civil antitrust suits.
Features
Section 326 of the USA PATRIOT Act requires financial institutions to implement a written Customer Identification Program (CIP) that is appropriate for the size and type of business and that includes minimum requirements. The CIP is intended to enable the institution to form a reasonable belief that it knows the true identify of each customer. The CIP must include account opening procedures that specify the identifying information to be obtained from each customer. It must also include reasonable and practical risk based procedures for verifying each customer's identity.
The recent conviction of I. Lewis Libby, former Chief of Staff to Vice President Cheney, provides another opportunity for corporate executives embroiled in government investigations to consider the pitfalls involved in interviews with the government or testimony before investigative bodies. Libby's conviction, though not stemming from a business crime investigation, nevertheless should serve as a reminder to potential witnesses that even otherwise innocent individuals often make things much worse by not being truthful with government agents or the grand jury.
One year = 12 months = 365 days. Or do they? Whether you are a geophysicist or merely a patent attorney facing a Paris Convention deadline, the answer is 'Not really.'
Features
The Supreme Court recently changed the longstanding rules for obtaining a permanent injunction in patent infringement cases. <i>eBay Inc. v. MercExchange LLC</i>, 126 S.Ct. 1837 (2006). Prior to the Supreme Court's ruling in eBay, it was generally accepted that a successful plaintiff in a patent infringement trial was entitled to a permanent injunction virtually automatically. The Federal Circuit's rule was 'courts will issue permanent injunctions against patent infringement absent exceptional circumstances.' The few exceptions to this rule were generally limited to situations where public health would be affected by enjoining the infringer.
A new Federal Circuit case has fundamentally changed the standards for declaratory judgment actions, making it much easier for companies concerned with a patent to file a suit establishing that they do not infringe the patent or that the patent is invalid. The case will have profound effects on the ways patent holders communicate with would-be licensees.
