How to Defend Officers and Directors in a Management-Hostile Environment
August 14, 2003
As noted last month in Part One of this article, it is less common, but not unheard of, for the debtor itself to directly provide funds to defend and indemnify its D&Os, in addition to, or in lieu of, maintaining D&O insurance or to address a situation where the D&O has refused coverage (which is <i>not</i> that uncommon of an development).
Litigation
August 01, 2003
Key cases of interest to you and your practice.
Employee Won't Sign a Non-Compete: Grounds for Dismissal?
August 01, 2003
A former employee may proceed with whistle-blowing and claims of wrongful discharge against an employer who fired her for refusing to sign a non-compete agreement. On April 16, 2003, the New Jersey Appellate Division (the Court) so ruled in <i>Maw v. Advanced Clinical Communications, Inc. (ACCI)</i>, 359 N.J. Super. 420 (App. Div. 2003).
Direct Evidence Not Needed in Mixed-Motive Cases
August 01, 2003
The Supreme Court ended its last term holding that direct evidence of discrimination is not necessary in a Title VII mixed-motive case. <i>Desert Palace, Inc. v. Costa</i>, 123 S. Ct. 2148 (2003) brings an end to an appellate court split regarding evidentiary burdens that began with the Court's plurality decision in <i>Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins</i>, 490 U.S. 228 (1989).
Anticipating the Obligation to Pay College Expenses
April 01, 2003
In contemporary American society, a college education is increasingly being seen as necessary to maintaining a decent standard of living. While many parents assume some responsibility for contributing to their child's post-secondary educational expenses, the situation for divorced parents is more complex. This article discusses several points related to this issue.
The Progressive Lawyer
April 01, 2003
There are several basic tools or road maps that can be applied to guide divorce lawyers in effectively organizing and presenting their cases. An immediately effective tool, so obvious but also often forgotten, is comprised of the factors that are contained within a given jurisdiction's statutes and rules. Regardless of jurisdiction and whether contained in rule or statute, there are always factors that are to be considered before any court can make its determinations. All too often, however, these factors are ignored or at least not presented in the most coherent manner possible. If we accept as an initial premise that the family courts, regardless of jurisdiction and vicinage, recognize that these standards and rules need to be considered, we should, as an important part of our testimonial or briefing process, lay out the standard and rule and apply the facts of our cases to the criteria in the most simplistic and straightforward manner.
