Features

In the post-Enron world, many public companies have come under intense scrutiny from the government. A diverse chorus of critics argues that the Department of Justice (DOJ) has gone too far, citing the overzealousness of line-level prosecutors, their failure to adhere to the measured tone struck by higher-level officials in their public pronouncements, and their general tendency to treat companies as racketeering organizations.

In today's environment of well-deserved hypersensitivity to corporate compliance as mandated by the SEC and the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX), the thought of unauthorized parties viewing or altering privileged corporate records should strike fear in the heart of any corporate compliance officer. That threat can quickly evolve into a reality if your corporation's law department implements an electronic invoicing and matter management system in an application service provider (ASP) environment.

Selective waiver of the attorney-client privilege is a lonely doctrine indeed. Since the Eighth Circuit first adopted it in the 1977 <i>Diversified Industries</i> case, the notion that a litigant may disclose privileged material to government enforcers without waiving the privilege as to third parties has hardly won fans among federal courts of appeal. Most recently, in June, 2006, the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit weighed in on the viability of selective waiver. The <i>In Re: Qwest Communications Int'l</i> decision is precisely what advocates for selective waiver needed least; it is a comprehensive evaluation, and rejection, of nearly all of the cogent arguments advanced in favor of the doctrine.

Features

Recent rulings of interest to you and your practice.

Before the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) issued its recent decisions in the Kentucky River cases, union leaders and activists predicted dire consequences ' potentially stripping millions of workers, especially in the healthcare industry, of their rights to join a union. Unions, which are trying to attract more employees to their ranks, staged rallies and other events to draw attention to these cases. <br>But the decisions did not dramatically redraw the lines for determining which workers are considered supervisors and which are not. Instead, they provided guidance that will be helpful to employers and unions alike in determining the status of workers whose classification falls into the gray area between supervisor and employee. The analysis remains highly fact-specific and appears unlikely to create the dramatic effects predicted.

In last month's article, we stated that among the abuses of the bankruptcy system to be remedied by BAPCPA is that of serial filing. The purpose of this two-part article is to provide a brief overview of BAPCPA's new provisions in revised ' 362 of the Bankruptcy Code, to summarize the various issues examined by the courts to date, and to provide some practical recommendations from the perspectives of debtor or credit. We continue this month with a discussion of presumption.

Valuation issues come into play throughout Chapter 11 business reorganization cases. These issues are frequently at the heart of the reorganization process and involve a wide variety of different matters. Bankruptcy courts determine value on a case-by-case basis and in light of the purpose and circumstances of the valuation.

The substantial amendments made by the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 (BAPCPA) to the Bankruptcy Code have had a significant impact on the dynamics of franchisee bankruptcies. The BAPCPA was generally intended to accelerate Chapter 11 'reorganizations' and provide relief to certain constituencies in the bankruptcy process (eg, landlords). This article focuses on the nuances of the BAPCPA's impact in franchisee bankruptcy cases.