Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Features
In its June 3, 2008, decision in <i>Pultz v. Economakis</i>, the New York State Court of Appeals unanimously ruled that there is no limit on the number of rent-stabilized units an owner can attempt to recover for owner occupancy. The ruling was a major victory for rent stabilized landlords, and a sharp rebuke to tenant advocates who claimed that multiple recovery for owner occupancy violated the letter and spirit of the Rent Stabilization Law. Indeed, the case continues a recent trend of favorable Court of Appeals decisions for landlords.
Features
The latest news from the franchising world.
Features
A franchisor of tax preparation franchises was entitled to a 24-month injunction beginning from the time of the former franchisee's compliance with a non-competition covenant. <i>Jackson Hewitt Inc. v. Childress</i>, Bus. Franchise Guide (CCH) ' 13,849 (D. N.J., Jan. 22, 2008). The permanent injunction was ordered when the court granted the plaintiff franchisor's motion for summary judgment.
Features
Perhaps you've heard: On Jan. 23, 2007, the Federal Trade Commission adopted the comprehensively revised FTC Franchise Rule ('The Amended Rule') and released the 'Statement of Basis and Purpose' ('SBP'), which clarified the Amended Rule's requirements and prohibitions. Compliance with the Amended Rule has been optional since July 1, 2007, and became mandatory on July 1, 2008.
Features
On April 5, 2007, the Court of Appeals voided a decade-old court-ordered stipulation that had settled a contested litigation over a rent-stabilized apartment. The landlord in <i>Riverside Syndicate Inc. v. Munroe, et al.</i> 10 N.Y.3d 18, was allowed to renege on a settlement on the theory that the stipulation violated public policy and unlawfully waived the tenant's rights. The ramifications of this ruling are extraordinary. A party to a court ordered settlement can reap the benefits for as long as is opportune (the court ruled that there is no applicable statute of limitations).
Features
Sky-high loss enhancements are increasingly scrutinized in a post-<i>Booker</i> world. Drawing on civil securities law, recent decisions in several circuits endorse an approach holding a defendant responsible for only the portion of victims' losses that was proximately caused by the offense. Some courts' critical analyses bode well for future sentencings.
Features
The fallout from Hewlett-Packard's ('HP') controversial boardroom leak investigation has led to a variety of actions ' including an investigation by the California Attorney General's office and Congressional hearings on the practice of 'pretexting' ' a tactic employed by Hewlett-Packard to gain the confidential phone records of board members. Despite the considerable press attention devoted to the incident, it is an otherwise under-the-radar action by the SEC that could have the greatest long-term impact on corporate governance and compliance.
Features
With the ever-increasing focus on security, wage and hour class actions create potential liability for a variety of employers, from airport vendors to power plants to retailers. Fortunately for these employers and others, the recent, yet limited, case law has held that such time is not compensable. Moreover, general wage and hour principles support this conclusion.
Features
In December 2007, Lucent Technologies Inc. secured a non-prosecution agreement from the Department of Justice and settled an enforcement action with the SEC for conduct related to travel and entertainment expenses incurred on behalf of Chinese government officials and for the manner in which these expenses were booked. The Lucent settlement adds to a number of existing guideposts regarding permissible interactions with foreign officials under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. This article examines the Lucent settlement, prior FCPA enforcement activity related to travel and lodging, and offers some practical advice for compliance counsel.