Features
Transitioning & Flexibility: What's In It For Senior Partners?
Many of the stories about senior partners pressured to retire so the next generation can take over are not pretty. Ironically, they clearly contradict the long-held notion of what a partnership should be at a time when less formal 'partnerships' are a management buzzword for getting things done in business. ('We partner with '' [our clients, other organizations, etc.]) And long time partners' needs and futures beyond financial arrangements are neglected.<br>For the younger generations in the workplace to get what they want, there must be something in it for the more senior people too. Here are my thoughts and recommendations.
Features
News Briefs
Highlights of the latest franchising news from around the country.
Features
The Conceit Of Meritocracy: Does Tradition Replace Thinking?
Is it true that merit and diversity conflict? Do law firms have to lower their standards in order to find more minorities?
Features
Court Watch
Highlights of the latest franchising cases from around the country.
Law Firm Mergers: What's the End Game?
There have been over 170 law firm mergers in the U.S. in the last 3 years. Although the pace has slowed a little since a peak of 82 in 2002, there is no end in sight.
Features
Understand Relevant State Law When Starting a Franchise
Many people make the mistake of assuming that uniform legal principles apply to franchising and that state laws applying to franchising are essentially the same no matter where you go. This assumption could not be more wrong. In fact, the differences in state law from state to state can have a substantial effect on the outcome of disputes between franchisee and franchisor.
Features
<b>BREAKING NEWS:</b> High Court Hears eBay Patent Case
Two veterans of the Supreme Court bar argued forcefully ' and inconclusively ' on March 29 in a high-stakes dispute over how easy it should be for a patent holder to win an injunction against an infringer.
Features
Domino's Prevails Against Franchisee in U.S. Supreme Court
The U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled in favor of Domino's Pizza in a case brought under §1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 by the sole shareholder of a corporation who alleged that Domino's breach of several contracts with the corporation was based upon racial animus toward him. <i>Domino's Pizza, Inc. v. McDonald</i>, 126 S.Ct. 1246 (2006).
Net News
House Panel Clears Anti-Internet Gambling Bill Last month, a U.S. House committee approved a bill aimed at stifling the $12 billion Internet gambling industry by prohibiting businesses from accepting credit cards and other forms of payment. The bill, endorsed by voice vote in the House Financial Services Committee, would enjoin a gambling business from accepting credit cards, checks, wire transfers and electronic funds transfers in illegal gambling transactions. …
Features
U.S. Supreme Court Settles Whether Illegality Claims Go to Arbitrator
Until the recent decision in <i>Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. Cardegna</i>, 126 S.Ct. 1204 (Feb. 21, 2006), there was some uncertainty as to how claims of illegality would fare against attempts to enforce arbitration agreements. The decision did not turn on whether the contract was void or voidable, as did earlier lower court decisions, but simply on whether the illegality claim was directed to the underlying contract or the arbitration clause itself. Relying on <i>Prima Paint Corp. v. Flood & Conklin Mfg. Co.</i>, 388 U.S. 395 (1967), the Court treated the illegality claim in the same manner as a claim of fraud in the inducement and held that 'unless the challenge is to the arbitration clause itself, the issue of the contract's validity is considered by the arbitrator in the first instance.' 126 S.Ct. at 1206.
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
- Use of Deferred Prosecution Agreements In White Collar InvestigationsThis article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.Read More ›
- The DOJ's Corporate Enforcement Policy: One Year LaterThe DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.Read More ›
- Surveys in Patent Infringement Litigation: The Next FrontierMost experienced intellectual property attorneys understand the significant role surveys play in trademark infringement and other Lanham Act cases, but relatively few are likely to have considered the use of such research in patent infringement matters. That could soon change in light of the recent admission of a survey into evidence in <i>Applera Corporation, et al. v. MJ Research, Inc., et al.</i>, No. 3:98cv1201 (D. Conn. Aug. 26, 2005). The survey evidence, which showed that 96% of the defendant's customers used its products to perform a patented process, was admitted as evidence in support of a claim of inducement to infringe. The court admitted the survey into evidence over various objections by the defendant, who had argued that the inducement claim could not be proven without the survey.Read More ›
- The DOJ's New Parameters for Evaluating Corporate Compliance ProgramsThe parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.Read More ›
- In the SpotlightOn May 9, 2003, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Massachusetts announced that Bayer Corporation, the pharmaceutical manufacturer, had been sentenced and ordered to pay a criminal fine of $5,590,800 stemming from its earlier plea of guilty to violating the Federal Prescription Drug Marketing Act by failing to list with the FDA its drug product, Cipro, that was privately labeled for an HMO. Such listing is required under the federal Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act. The Federal Prescription Drug Marketing Act, Pub. L. 100-293, enacted on April 22, 1988, as modified on August 26, 1992 by the Prescription Drug Amendments (PDA) Pub. L. 102-353, 106 Stat. 941, amended sections 301, 303, 503, and 801 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, codified at 21 U.S.C. '' 331, 333, 353, 381, to establish requirements for distributing prescription drug samples.Read More ›
