Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Qualified retirement plans that provide immediate cash-out distributions to a terminated participant if the vested benefit is "$5000 or less" must be amended to comply with Department of Labor (DOL) final regulations. The final regulations are effective for rollovers of mandatory distributions made on or after March 28, 2005. The final regulations provide a safe harbor for fiduciaries of tax-qualified pension plans that are required to roll over plan benefits into an individual retirement plan when a terminated employee fails to elect a distribution method.
The Eighteenth Annual Conference & Workshops on Law Firm Management & Economics will be held in New Orleans, LA on March 17 and 18, 2005 at the Omni Royal Orleans Hotel.
In conducting strategic planning studies and facilitating numerous strategic planning retreats, I regularly discuss long-term trends affecting law firms with dozens of members of executive committees and managing partners. These trends of interest differ somewhat, of course, for firms of different sizes. More importantly, sometimes the same trend has very different implications for firms of different sizes.
Features
Lawyers who prevail in a civil rights case but win only nominal damages are generally not entitled to attorney fees, the Court of Appeals has ruled in a groundbreaking opinion.
Features
It only seems fair for the in-house department to strive to simplify the billing process at a time when it is demanding so much from outside counsel.
Features
Three more Philadelphia law firms have joined in the parade to raise starting salaries. Hangley Aronchick Segal & Pudlin and Saul Ewing both moved their starting wage from $105,000 to $115,000, and Fox Rothschild is jacking its rate from $100,000 to $110,000.
Features
National rulings of interest to you and your practice.
Features
Suppose a group of officers of one of your foreign-based corporate clients, with no offices or businesses in the United States, makes a rare visit to the U.S. for an industry-related conference. Between sessions, they break off to participate in a conference call with employees overseas. The subject is whether to authorize political contributions in another country in the hope of getting business there, and they tell their compatriots to proceed. As soon as the conference is over, they head home. Can this one call be the basis for an assertion of U.S. jurisdiction over your client and the officers under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA)? Surprisingly, the answer is yes, in spite of the entirely accidental nature of the contact.
Features
White-collar defense attorneys face many challenges to overcome in successfully representing their clients. In federal criminal cases, the challenges have increased dramatically due to the heightened punishments that can be assessed against "non-cooperating" individuals or businesses who insist upon their rights to a trial. Consider the recent case of Jamie Olis, a mid-level accountant at an energy company, who (unlike two of his superiors) went to trial and was convicted of various fraud charges for having engaged in "income-smoothing" or "cookie-jar accounting" of the company's earnings history to try to help the company meet its earnings expectations. Although Olis received no financial benefit for his misguided efforts, he got 24 years' imprisonment (compared with his cooperative bosses, whose sentences were capped at a 5-year maximum under plea agreements). The sentence was largely due to the calculations of the "amount of loss."
