LJN Newsletters

  • Winds of Regulatory and Legislative Change in Canada

    The impetus for greater international harmonization in the law of pre-sale franchise disclosure is about to get a boost in Ontario, Canada. At press time, financial statements to be attached to compliant disclosure documents under Ontario's Arthur Wishart Act ("Franchise Disclosure"), 2000 ("The Wishart Act") are required to be prepared only in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards ("GAAS") — if audited — or, if not audited, then prepared under the review engagement standards in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles ("GAAP") set out in the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants' Handbook ("CICA Handbook"). No other standards are currently acceptable.

    June 27, 2005Markus Cohen, Q.C.

  • How 7-Eleven Developed a New System-Wide Franchise Agreement

    In 2004, 7-Eleven, Inc. offered its entire U.S. franchise network a new franchise agreement. More than 96% of the franchisees representing its 3400 franchised stores signed the new agreement. The plans, process, and activities that were a part of this endeavor and the experiences developing and implementing this new agreement offer insight to both franchisors and franchisees when planning system-wide changes and/or new franchise agreements.

    June 27, 2005Michael R. Davis

  • Court Watch

    Highlights of the latest franchising cases from around the country.

    June 27, 2005Justin B. Heineman

  • In The Courts

    Recent rulings of importance to you and your practice.

    June 27, 2005ALM Staff | Law Journal Newsletters |

  • Evasion of Foreign Tax Can Be Mail Fraud

    The Supreme Court has decided that the Federal mail and wire fraud statutes can be used in prosecutions involving schemes to defraud a foreign government of tax revenue. The April 26 decision, written by Justice Thomas, expansively interpreted the words of 18 U.S.C. '' 1341 and 1343 and narrowly interpreted the common law "revenue rule," which some courts had viewed as limiting the reach of these statutes in cases involving foreign tax evasion. Pasquantino v. United States, 125 S.Ct. 1766 (2005).

    June 27, 2005Stuart E. Abrams and Jennifer Frankel

  • Supreme Court Overturns Arthur Andersen Conviction

    The ruling was swift and unanimous. On May 31, 2005, the Supreme Court reversed the conviction of the late accounting firm, Arthur Andersen LLP (Andersen), under the federal witness tampering statute, 18 U.S.C. ' 1512(b)(2), in a key case arising from one of the most significant corporate scandals in American history. Arthur Andersen LLP v. United States, 544 U.S. -- (2005) (full text of the opinion can be downloaded at www.supremecourtus. gov/opinions/04pdf/04-368.pdf). The result was unsurprising given the antagonistic questions the Justices posed to the government at oral argument. The Court overturned Andersen's conviction on the narrow grounds that the jury instructions failed to convey properly the elements of a crime under ' 1512(b)(2), and remanded for a possible new trial. The decision clarified the limits of ' 1512(b)(2) while leaving at least one important question unresolved. Perhaps more importantly, it may force a more narrow reading of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act with respect to document retention.

    June 27, 2005Nicholas A. Oldham

  • The Unchanged Agenda

    The call for improved corporate ethics has been thoroughly embraced by the worlds of business and public policy -- so much so that the recent invalidation of the federal sentencing guidelines, which allowed corporations to mitigate their sentences, will not slow the campaign's momentum. Rather, the guidelines' new advisory status should focus companies more on the overriding need to build an ethical culture, and less on rote, process-oriented compliance. This change in focus will underscore the guidelines' core strength: They are more than just legal procedure -- they articulate best practices in business ethics, which companies can put to constructive use.

    June 27, 2005Dov Seidman

  • Hotline

    PCAOB Issues Guidance on Audits of Internal ControlThe Public Company Accounting Oversight Board has published additional guidance to auditors on how to…

    June 27, 2005ALM Staff | Law Journal Newsletters |

  • Time To Check Your D&O Coverage

    It has become clear that not all D&O insurance coverages are created equal. And, in many instances, your policy may not provide the coverage that you count on. Clearly, in recent years, liability exposure for corporate directors has significantly increased. The erosion of protection not only for outside directors but also directors and officers generally, is a direct result of the corporate scandals that have erupted over the last several years, in one case creating the largest corporate bankruptcy in history, all due in large measure to fraudulent activity on the part of some.

    June 27, 2005William L. Floyd