Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Features
Everything in this issue, in an easy-to-follow format.
Features
Recent rulings you need to know.
Last month's issue analyzed the Court of Appeals' determination in <i>Thornton v. Baron</i>, invalidating the illusory tenancies. This month, we focus on the court's computation of rent due.
Features
Dismissal of jury's insider trading guilty verdict upheld: A divided Second Circuit has upheld the dismissal of a guilty verdict against a computer company…
These relatively simple questions are not always easy to answer, particularly when they pertain to pay issues under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). On Nov. 8, 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court provided some needed clarification in two consolidated cases ' IBP, Inc. v. Alvarez and Tum v. Barber Foods, Inc.
The Seventh Circuit has reaffirmed a competitor's right to copy and use unprotected product designs ' and clarified the ability to do so without violating the Lanham Act for "passing off" or trade dress infringement. <i>Bretford Mfg., Inc. v. Smith System Mfg., Corp.</i> This article examines the legal precedent behind the right to copy and use unprotected product designs in the context of this case, and provide analysis of its impact.
Features
Ironically, the SEC and the Department of Justice, which enforce SOX's criminal provisions, appear ready to burden the traditional ethical obligations of corporate legal counselors to keep client communications confidential in an effort to police the integrity and ethics of other corporate gatekeepers. To that end, the SEC imposes certain reporting requirements on corporate counselors, attempts to preempt state ethics rules, and DOJ prosecutors routinely pressure "target" corporations to waive the attorney-client privilege to obtain "cooperation" points. Corporate counselors must be aware of those initiatives to properly balance their competing obligations.