Features
Can Disclosure Set You Free?
The misappropriation theory of insider trading, which was first recognized by the Supreme Court in <i>United States v. O'Hagan</i>, 521 U.S. 642 (1997), establishes liability for individuals who are not typical 'insiders' of companies and also appears to offer such defendants a specific defense to insider trading charges. The O'Hagan Court based the misappropriation theory on a duty owed by the defendant to the source of non-public material information, rather than to the shareholders of the company whose stock was being traded. Because a defendant prosecuted under the misappropriation theory had a duty only to his source, the Court explained that a defendant's disclosure to the source of information prior to trading or tipping could neutralize the acts of deception necessary for a securities fraud claim.
Lessens for Counsel After Hewlett-Packard
Indictments and resignations following an internal investigation are not necessarily surprising. In the case of the Hewlett-Packard ('HP') investigation, however, it's the investigators who are in dire straits. In the months since HP publicly announced that it had conducted an internal investigation into news leaks by corporate directors, its Chairman and General Counsel have resigned, criminal charges have been filed against those involved in the investigation, and one person has pled guilty. HP exemplifies the pitfalls and problems that can result from an internal investigation itself, for both the company and its counsel. As one Congressman asked: 'Where were the lawyers? There were red flags waving all over the place,' but 'none of the lawyers stepped up to their responsibilities.'
Features
Southern California's First Asbestos Bankruptcy
Litigation involving asbestos, which was used for decades as a fire retardant in many products, has littered the legal landscape for years. Several major companies have over the course of the last several years filed for bankruptcy as a result of the onslaught of this litigation. Since the 1980s, many asbestos manufacturers, including Johns Manville, declared bankruptcy under the weight of liability payouts. To date, an estimated 85 companies have filed for bankruptcy claiming asbestos liabilities as the cause. A Rand Institute for Civil Justice report indicates that more than 730,000 asbestos claims have been filed since the early 1970s. Roughly 200,000 claims are still pending in state and federal courts nationwide. Estimates predict that up to 2.4 million claims still may be filed before asbestos litigation finally runs its course.
When Trade Vendor Priority Claims Get Paid
The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania recently issued one of the first decisions in the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to interpret ' 503(b)(9), an important new Bankruptcy Code provision passed under the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act (BAPCPA): <i>In re Bookbinders' Restaurant Inc.</i> ' 503(b)(9) is certain to impact the relationship between a debtor seeking to reorganize and the trade vendors that deal with it.
Features
Exchange-Traded Solvency Derivatives
In the last ten years, the credit derivatives market has grown from its infancy to approximately $26 trillion of notional value according to the International Swaps and Derivatives Association, Inc. ('ISDA'). The most highly utilized type of credit derivative, the credit default swap, is used by investors to bet on a company's creditworthiness or hedge a position in a fashion that protects against the company's failure to make a payment or satisfy other terms.
Features
Wage Hour Laws Provide Traps for the Unwary
It has often been said that the most frequently violated federal employment-related statute is the Fair Labor Standards Act ('FLSA'), 29 U.S.C. '' 201-19 (Supp. 2006). This law, enacted in 1938, regulates, among other things, the payment of overtime to employees who work for employers. Our experience indicates that most, if not all, employers do not intend to violate the provisions contained in the FLSA but, instead, do so out of ignorance of its requirements. This article highlights some of the key provisions of the FLSA, makes reference to recent pronouncements by the United States Department of Labor (the federal agency principally responsible for interpretation of the statute) and presents advice on how to avoid the pitfalls inherent in the FLSA.
Features
Paddling Down Esopus Creek
An end-of-year (Nov. 29) Delaware Chancery Court decision, <i>Esopus Creek Value LP v. Hauf</i>, No. 2487-N (Del. Ch. Nov. 29, 2006), is receiving a great deal of attention from corporate transactional and corporate restructuring attorneys alike. In <i>Esopus</i>, 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
Enforcement Under State Security Breach Notification Laws
Thirty-four states have enacted security breach notification laws. And Michigan passed such a law with an effective date of July 2, 2007. These laws cover the notification that a company must make in the event of a breach of security of its system with respect to computerized personal information. How are these laws enforced in the event of a violation? These laws vary in terms of enforcement and penalties, as more particularly described below. This article provides an overview of the enforcement of these laws and describes examples of penalties.
Features
Document Discovery
In today's litigation world, corporate counsel struggle to contain the ever-increasing costs of document discovery. The explosion of electronically stored information ('ESI') is often a huge contributor to the expense of discovery. Consultants, vendors, and e-discovery software can help bring greater efficiencies and cost-savings to the process. But while there is a dizzying array of options available, they are not all created equal. Finding the right solution requires that you do your homework.
Need Help?
- Prefer an IP authenticated environment? Request a transition or call 800-756-8993.
- Need other assistance? email Customer Service or call 1-877-256-2472.
MOST POPULAR STORIES
- Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright LawsThis article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.Read More ›
- The Article 8 Opt InThe Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.Read More ›
- Warehouse Liability: Know Before You Stow!As consumers continue to shift purchasing and consumption habits in the aftermath of the pandemic, manufacturers are increasingly reliant on third-party logistics and warehousing to ensure their products timely reach the market.Read More ›
- The Anti-Assignment Override ProvisionsUCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?Read More ›
- The Stranger to the Deed RuleIn 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.Read More ›