Dishonest employees always have posed a problem for businesses. The average business may lose 6% of its annual revenues to employee fraud, and cumulatively the impact of employee theft on the economy is estimated to be $600 billion annually. See Association of Certified Fraud Examiners ("ACFE"), 2002 Report to the Nation on Occupational Fraud & Abuse, at ii, 4 (2002), available at www.cfenet.com/publications/rttn.asp. Although the average loss through employee embezzlement is $25,000, where computerized financial records or transactions are involved, the average loss increases nearly twentyfold. See National White Collar Crime Center, WCC Issue: Embezzlement/Employee Theft, at 2 (2002), available at http://nw3c.org/downloads/Computer_Crime_Weapon.pdf.
- April 01, 2004Robert E. Johnston and Christopher L. LaFon
Everything you need to find what's inside this issue.
April 01, 2004ALM Staff | Law Journal Newsletters |Recent cases of importance to your practice.
April 01, 2004ALM Staff | Law Journal Newsletters |Recent cases of importance to your practice.
April 01, 2004ALM Staff | Law Journal Newsletters |The latest real property law rulings you need to know.
April 01, 2004ALM Staff | Law Journal Newsletters |The latest rulings eminent domain law.
April 01, 2004ALM Staff | Law Journal Newsletters |The latest rulings of importance to your practice.
April 01, 2004ALM Staff | Law Journal Newsletters |Congress enacted the Telecommunications Act of 1996 to encourage development of telecommunications technologies, and in particular, to facilitate growth of the wireless telephone industry. The statute's provisions on pre-emption of state and local regulation have been frequently litigated. Last month, however, the Court of Appeals, in Chambers v. Old Stone Hill Road Associates (see infra, p. 7) faced an issue of first impression: Can neighboring landowners invoke private restrictive covenants to prevent construction of a cellular telephone tower? The court upheld the restrictive covenants, recognizing that the federal statute was designed to reduce state and local regulation of cell phone facilities, not to alter rights created by private agreement.
April 01, 2004Stewart E. SterkThe Federal District Court for the Southern District of New York has allowed a class of 6,500 plaintiffs to pursue their complaint against several investment companies for violations of the Workers Adjustment and Notification, or WARN, Act. In doing so, the court in In re Vogt, 2004 WL 187153, adopted and applied not the traditional piercing-the-corporate-veil test but instead the more narrowly focused and easier to establish "DOL test," based on the Department of Labor's WARN regulations.
This case should be of concern to all employers, not just equity investors. The nation's economy now seems to be hovering between recession and recovery.April 01, 2004Luis SalazarWe all know that since 9/11, the American public has a heightened sense of anxiety about their personal safety. Our legislative body, sensing America's anxiety, created a new agency, the Department of Homeland Security ostensibly to protect us from terrorist threats. But, while doing so, Congress snuck in a compelling tort reform program. Hidden beneath the folds of the legislative verbiage creating the DHS, situated immediately before the miscellaneous provisions, lies a new program to incentivize and protect individuals and companies engaged in developing anti-terrorist technologies: the SAFETY Act of 2002. Surprisingly, the private sector, so far, has not voiced much enthusiasm for it.
April 01, 2004Barbara A. Duncombe and David A. Carr