Features

E-mail has become a way of life. Its advantages in the business world are widely known: It is an inexpensive, easily distributed medium, which can be accessed, even wirelessly, almost instantaneously anywhere in the world. In this fast-paced global economy, these features are highly desired. E-mail in the workplace is a double-edged sword, however, and the problems associated with workplace e-mail, particularly in connection with litigation-related discovery, have been recognized with increasing frequency by courts and litigants around the country.

Features

As set forth in a prior article appearing in the April issue of the <i>Internet Law &amp; Strategy</i> newsletter, despite some suggestions to the contrary, the rise of the Internet as a business tool does not portend the end of limits on personal jurisdiction. Rather, the courts are continuing to find that the Internet merely provides another vehicle (albeit an electronic one) through which a party may purposely avail itself of the privilege of conducting business in a foreign state and thus subject itself to jurisdiction in that state.

Features

Few Internet law issues create a greater challenge than Internet jurisdiction, which raises the fundamental question of whose law applies to activity that takes place online. While some experts initially hoped that the Internet might breed a new era of global legal harmonization, a closer examination reveals that legal differences are cropping up everywhere as countries become more assertive in ensuring that their Internet legal framework is consistent with national policy priorities.

Despite the temptation, there's no need to put on a Don King wig when reading this story (notice I avoided saying "don" a Don King wig ' I just couldn't do it). In The Supreme Court of Judicature Court of Appeal sitting in London, the court upheld the ruling of a lower court that a libel suit against world-renowned boxing promoter Don King based on statements published on several Web sites remain to be heard in England, rather than be moved to the U.S.

Features

Recent rulings of importance to you and your practice.

There has been a significant increase in litigation in the U.S. under Section 304 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. It is through that statutory mechanism that foreign issuers, having sold debt in the U.S., restructure the debt under foreign restructuring regimes and then return to the U.S. for "recognition." Recognition under ' 304 has been read to cut off claims and litigation by U.S. creditors in U.S. courts, avoid U.S. judgments for collection, and hence can pave the way for the foreign company to access the U.S. capital markets in the future.

Last month, we discussed the perceptible increase in the number of bankruptcy transactions taking place with the underlying arrangements being placed under seal. We discussed disclosure obligations, Section 107 and Bankruptcy Rule 9018, and commercial information, citing <i>Orion Pictures</i> as a leading case on the issue of what constitutes "confidential commercial information." Defining the limits of confidential commercial information can also be aided by reviewing cases decided both prior to and after <i>Orion Pictures</i>, where courts have refused to seal court records.

Features

The distinction between recourse to Chapter 11 protection as a legitimate means to maximize the value of a company's assets and/or to restructure its financially troubled yet otherwise viable operations, on the one hand, and clear bankruptcy abuse, on the other, is sometimes murky. A court called upon to make such a distinction is obliged to "get into the debtor's head" and investigate the board's motives for commencing a bankruptcy case and, in some cases, to decide whether the debtor's otherwise permissible use of the powerful provisions of federal bankruptcy law is impermissible because the debtor's motives are antithetical to the basic purposes of bankruptcy.