Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
What are the risks for employers in instances where employees use company computers to access, view, download, store and possibly forward pornography or engage in illegal activities? How can corporate counsel both prevent these abuses and handle investigations if they suspect some kind of prohibited conduct is occurring in the workplace?
Features
Understandably, companies have become more sensitive about protecting confidential, proprietary business information from disclosure to competitors and others outside the company. A recent ruling by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, <i>Venetian Casino Report v. EEOC</i>, 2006 WL 2806568 (D.D. Cir. 2006), demonstrates that such disclosures may occur in the most unexpected ways.
Features
Now that the holiday season is over, employers may be facing fallout from their holiday parties. Although a review of recent cases asserting social host and workers' compensation liability reveals few reported decisions, there is likely no corresponding reduction in risk, and the increasing number of employers hosting holiday parties in recent years prompts an analysis of the challenges employers face in planning their annual holiday parties. It is not too soon to plan for next year's celebrations, while the experience from this year is fresh. This article discusses illustrative cases and suggests a number of concrete steps employers may wish to consider to reduce injuries and potential liabilities in planning their next holiday parties.
Recent rulings of importance to you and your practice.
Last month, we explained that valuation issues come into play throughout Chapter 11 business reorganization cases. We discussed how to recognize the uncertainties underlying expert valuation conclusions; enterprise/going concern value; and the fact that the goal of any valuation is to make an estimate based on an informed judgment that embraces all facts relevant to future earning capacity and hence to present worth, including, of course, the nature and conditions of the properties, the past earnings record, and all circumstances that indicate whether or not the record is reliable criterion of future performance. We conclude this month with a discussion of expert evidence.
The unique environment of the automotive industry has resulted in the insolvencies of tier-one and tier-two suppliers developing distinct characteristics. Unlike many industries, automotive suppliers typically have only a handful of customers, without whom they have no business to reorganize or sell in an effort maximize values for creditors. This gives customers significant control in the options a debtor has when faced with severe financial distress. However, because of Original Equipment Manufacturers' (OEM) just-in-time methods of production ' unlike customers in many businesses that can simply decide not to do business with an insolvent entity ' OEMs and large tier-one suppliers cannot purchase automotive parts or assemblies elsewhere.
Features
In recent years, debtors in large corporate bankruptcies have sometimes sought and obtained, in varying degrees, authority at the outset of bankruptcy cases for severe restrictions on trading in claims against the debtors by substantial claimholders. In practice, however, these debt-trading orders have chilled the market for trading in debt securities and served to entrench existing management by effectively precluding substantial investors from acquiring meaningful positions in the debtor's debt securities.
In recent years, cases such as <i>Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe, Inc.</i>, 323 F.3d 956 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ('<i>Enzo</i>') and <i>University of Rochester v. G.D. Searle and Co., Inc.</i>, 375 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ('<i>Rochester</i>') have fueled an ongoing debate over whether the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. §112 includes a written description requirement, separate and distinct from enablement and best mode. According to Judge Randall Ray Rader, <i>Univ. of Cal. v. Eli Lilly & Co.</i>, 119 F.3d 1559 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ('<i>Eli Lilly</i>') brought the written description requirement squarely to light. <i>Rochester</i>, 375 F.3d at 1307 (Circuit Judge Rader dissenting). This 'new' requirement creates 'enormous confusion,' not only for the courts, but also for patent drafters. <i>Id.</i> Because the requirement is in flux, patent practitioners should avoid overlooking the requirement or taking it too lightly.
