Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Features
Many people believe that the most difficult job of a director is being a member of the Audit Committee. However, in many ways being a member of the Compensation Committee is more challenging and much more likely to result in the director becoming subject to public scrutiny and possibly criticism.
As corporate scandals continue to dominate the financial press, the actions taken by members of corporate boards of directors are under attack by the civil class action bar, the Securities and Exchange Commission, federal prosecutors, and state regulators. As the activities of board members are increasingly subjected to challenge in civil and even criminal proceedings, the existence of a clear record of the board's activities has become an increasingly critical element in establishing a corporation's decision-making process. Thus, boards of directors should take a fresh look at how their decision-making process is described in corporate minutes to ensure that the minutes will permit the directors to defend the actions taken in the boardroom, as well as to demonstrate that the directors have performed their oversight duties with appropriate care.
Features
The recent 11th Circuit ruling in <i>Palmer & Cay, Inc., et. al. v. Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc.</i> means corporate counsel should reconsider their approach to drafting and enforcing non-compete agreements.
You've endured the roller coaster of a white-collar trial and hold out hope that protracted jury deliberations may presage an acquittal. But then the trial judge dismisses, for refusal to deliberate, a juror who may favor your client, installs an alternate and directs that deliberations begin anew. A guilty verdict and prison sentence ensue. It can happen; it did recently. In this age of protracted financial fraud and public corruption trials, it raises interesting cautionary issues for the white-collar defense lawyer.
On Jan. 12, 2005, the Supreme Court in <i>United States v. Booker</i> ended months of speculation as to what was to become of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines after the Court's June 2004 decision in <i>Blakely v. Washington</i>, and held that the guidelines were unconstitutional. To remedy the unconstitutionality, the Court excised portions of the Sentencing Reform Act that required the sentencing judge to sentence within the guidelines range and that set the standard of appellate review of sentences.
On July 27, 2005, a Seattle federal judge sentenced the so-called "Millennium Bomber," who was convicted of conspiring to bomb Los Angeles International Airport during the 2000 New Year's holiday season (and who cooperated with the government for a period of time and then stopped), to 22 years in prison. The government had sought a 35-year sentence for the 38-year-old defendant.
Features
Recent rulings of interest to you and your practice.
Recent rulings of interest to you and your practice.
Features
Last month, we discussed <i>Sherwood Partners, Inc., Assignee for the Benefit of Creditors of International Thinklink Corporation v. Lycos, Inc.</i>, 394 Fed11198 (9th Cir. 2005). In that case, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, by a divided court, held that a state statute authorizing an assignee for the benefit of creditors to void a preferential transfer is preempted by the federal Bankruptcy Code. This month, we discuss the ruling in depth.
