Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Features
In <i>Arthur Andersen LLP v. United States</i>, 125 S. Ct. 2129, 235 (2005), the Supreme Court acknowledged the importance of records management policies that provide for the routine destruction of unneeded records under ordinary circumstances. It is, however, common knowledge that such policies should ordinarily be suspended once an investigation or litigation is reasonably anticipated. This is normally accomplished through the imposition of a 'litigation hold,' the process of notifying employees of their obligations to preserve all potentially relevant records while continuing the routine destruction of non-relevant active and archived data. This may be a company's first line of defense against claims of spoliation or obstruction. The failure to suspend routine purges of records in the face of litigation has contributed to the imposition of sanctions as high as $1.45 billion on companies.
Features
Historically, when a health care company had a compliance failure, counsel could help it remain in business by negotiating with the relevant agency. If the problem involved sales, marketing or pricing, the company could seek a Corporate Integrity Agreement (CIA) with the Office of Inspector General (OIG) at Health and Human Services (HHS). If the problems related to manufacturing, counsel could obtain a consent decree of permanent injunction ('consent decree') with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) under the Food Drug and Cosmetic Act (FDCA). Consent decrees and CIAs each had their particular burdens and benefits, which health care practitioners had learned to navigate. Now this tidy distinction has become blurred as the FDA has borrowed features from HHS's CIAs.
Features
By now, I'm sure everyone has heard that the new Windows operating system, Vista', is available for purchase. While Vista has been available for corporate licensing since late last year, the full rollout for individual PCs didn't become available until Jan. 30. <br>The question is: Should you upgrade your machine with this new system?
Today, e-mail is as second nature to most attorneys and law offices as sending a letter or fax. Hardly anyone ever thinks twice about sending, receiving or even thinking about the content they put into the average e-mail message. Most even think a step further and really think that an e-mail is just like a conversation, <i>i.e.</i>, once it's over the conversation ceases to exist.
Features
A few years ago, Kennedy Childs & Fogg, P.C., a law firm with offices in Denver and on the Western Slope with 42-plus trial lawyers, had reached a crossroads when it came to time, billing and accounting system: Either spend a significant amount of money upgrading to the next version of Thomson Elite (around $120,000), including adding multiple SQL servers with ongoing maintenance issues, or convert to a newer system with the same ' or better ' features that would be both easier to use and less expensive. The firm chose the latter.
Features
The intent of the new amendments is for cases to run smoother and focus on the merits rather than on the electronic discovery process. With the new elements in the 'meet and confer' conference requirement, counsel is now expected to understand its client's information infrastructure in order to negotiate what material will be disclosed, how it will be produced and in what timeframe. <br>Most alarming is that all of this discussion and a good part of this activity, under FRCP Rule 26(f), must take place and be presented to the court within 120 days of lawsuits being served in federal court.
The net result is that electronic data discovery (EDD) has increased the cost of litigation significantly. The largest component of EDD costs ' by far ' is attorney review. Analysts estimate that corporations spend between $10 billion and $15 billion per year on attorney review, and many corporate legal departments report that attorney review of electronic data now represents the single largest line item on their budgets.
Recent rulings of interest to you and your practice.
Features
An end-of-year (Nov. 29) Delaware Chancery Court decision, <i>Esopus Creek Value LP v. Hauf</i>, is receiving a great deal of attention from corporate transactional and corporate restructuring attorneys alike. In Esopus, the Delaware Chancery Court prevented a financially sound company that was prohibited by federal securities law from holding a shareholder vote, because it failed to meet its reporting requirements, from executing an agreement outside of bankruptcy to sell substantially all of its assets under Section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code without first obtaining common stockholder approval as required under Section 271(a) of the Delaware General Company Law ('DGCL').
Features
The image of bondholder activism in many quarters is one of rapacious bondholders aggressively pursuing a ruthless quest for returns. The reality is far more complex, but the outcome of particular cases may be surprisingly predictable for the astute analyst.