Features

In the past, the implementation of a comprehensive document retention policy may have seemed a secondary concern at best; however, the primary importance to all companies of implementing such a policy was dramatically illustrated in 2002. That year brought the federal obstruction of justice conviction and ultimate demise of accounting firm Arthur Andersen for destruction of documents it knew were important to the SEC's investigation of the Enron scandal. It also brought the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, which significantly expanded the reach of federal obstruction statutes, increased the penalties for document destruction that hinders a federal investigation, and promulgated new record-keeping obligations. <i>See, e.g.</i> 18 U.S.C. 1519, 1520. Coupled with these developments are the ever-expanding obligations in connection with discovery of electronic information.

Improper use of experts in product liability cases is all too familiar. The proper use of an expert's specialized knowledge or expertise is to assist the trier of fact to determine a fact at issue. Some lawyers, however, use experts merely as sounding boards to highlight key facts and argue conclusory inferences in support of a party's case. These "experts" are typically offered as "historians" and arbiters of "ethical" conduct.

&#133;

Recent rulings of importance to you and your practice.

The equitable remedy of constructive trust is employed when "property has been acquired in such circumstances that the holder of the legal title may not in good conscience retain the beneficial interest," and therefore equity converts him into a trustee. <i>In re Koreag, Controle et Revision S.A.</i>, 961 F.2d 341, 353 (2d Cir. 1992). This legal theory arises in bankruptcy cases when a non-debtor party with a pre-petition contract, which ostensibly grants such party an ownership interest in funds or which establishes an agency relationship with a debtor, seeks, in the bankruptcy case, to assert its ownership rights to the funds held by the debtor.

Features

The voluntary winding-up (<i>liquidation volontaire</i>) of a corporation is one of the many, though expensive, options available to shareholders wishing to withdraw from a corporation facing financial difficulties. Other options include the sale of their stake or of the corporation itself, possibly following a restructuring. The corporation may be sold as a whole or, where these exist, through the divestment of one or more branches of activity. The transaction may then be effected through various share deals for the different subsidiaries, or through the sale of assets, subsequent to which the corporation will still have to be wound up. A lease of business (<i>location g'rance</i>) followed by the sale of the business may also be an option.

Where, as is generally the case, stock of a bankrupt company changes hands upon emergence, the company may undergo an "ownership change" and the use of its net operating losses (NOLs) may be subject to limitation under Section 382 of the Internal Revenue Code (Code). This article discusses the loss limitation rules, in general, and one of the special rules under Section 382 of the Code that applies to bankrupt companies, specifically.

Features

Recent developments in entertainment law.