Don't Touch e-Discovery Data!
October 30, 2006
I am frequently asked about best practices in collecting electronically stored information (ESI) and how data collections should, or should not, be performed. While collections will certainly vary from matter to matter based on the objectives that come to bear in particular situations, there are some general best practices that should be followed in all matters, especially when it comes to touching the data.
On the Case
October 30, 2006
In the legal realm, concern about the security of sensitive data during transport has never been higher. Attorneys from coast to coast have watched the headlines and read countless articles about files and tapes that have been lost or stolen while being moved from Point A to Point B ' during legal discovery activities, perhaps, or to satisfy compliance requirements.<br>As a result, law firms and corporate in-house counsel are investigating more dependable methods for securing information during transit, when it is most vulnerable. Many of these experienced denizens of e-data have concluded that encryption provides the greatest protection throughout the chain of custody, and that this locked-door method of data security can be achieved at a relatively reasonable cost.
Prepare for e-Discovery
October 30, 2006
With state laws governing the capture and securing of evidence ' including electronic data ' the possibility of spoliation is a genuine concern. Not only could evidence subjected to spoliation be inadmissible, but misdemeanor or felony charges could apply to the collector and the contracting party.<br>Identifying electronic evidence, much like in a physical crime scene, starts with drawing increasing concentric circles around the victim or perpetrator. Some care must be taken regarding a company's policies and practices. State and federal law on personal property may be involved if the employee used personal devices legally or illegally in combination with the company's assets, and a warrant or commencement of discovery may be required to access personal property or equipment on private property.
In the Marketplace
October 30, 2006
Highlights of the latest equipment leasing news from around the country.
When Is Equipment Not 'Equipment'? Inventory Leasing or Leasing to Rental Companies
October 30, 2006
Part One of this series discussed special perfection rules for purchase money security interest in inventory and additional risks when leased goods are 'inventory.' This second installment addresses: buyer in ordinary course of business under revised Article '9-320(A); power to transfer and entrusting under '2-403; and rights of buyers and Sublessee in ordinary course under '2A-305.
Revised Proposal: Understanding the Interagency Statement on Complex Structured Finance Activities
October 30, 2006
Many U.S. financial institutions that have participated in equipment leasing transactions (particularly in the large-ticket and municipal markets) in the last 20 years will be keenly aware that as the structures grew ever more complicated, Congress and the federal regulatory agencies grew intensely interested. Whether the institution had a major role in the transaction or simply provided a service, some degree of scrutiny could be expected, often in conjunction with a tax audit of its client. The risks to financial institutions from participating in complex structured finance transactions of all types became a source for concern for banking and securities regulators. The principal federal regulators responded in 2004 with a proposal that financial institutions investigate, and bear responsibility for evaluating, the legal, tax, and accounting basis of their clients' complex structured finance transactions. The goal: to limit the institutions' own credit, legal, and reputational risk from such participation.
The USA PATRIOT Act Renewed: Reassessing Money Laundering Risk in Finance Transactions
October 30, 2006
The federal government is stepping up its aggressive enforcement of anti-money laundering/combating the financing of terrorism ('AML/CFT'). Enforcement actions have already spread beyond 'traditional' financial institutions, such as banks. Regulations that are expected to be promulgated soon will likely embolden these enforcement actions against leasing companies, equipment vendors, finance companies, and other 'financial institutions.' These parties should reassess their compliance risk under the AML/CFT rules. The consequences of these risks are important. For example, the loss of reputation from being brushed with the taint of money laundering can sink a business.
IP News
October 30, 2006
Highlights of the latest intellectual property news from around the country.
Supreme Court to Review Obviousness Standard: Is a Higher Bar for Patentability Imminent?
October 30, 2006
In reviewing <i>KSR Int'l v. Teleflex, Inc.</i> (No. 04-1350), the Supreme Court is set to tackle one of the fundamental issues of patentability ' the standard for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. '103. As expected, this case has generated significant interest and numerous <i>amicus</i> briefs have been filed. With oral argument expected to be heard late this month, this case marks the first time in 30 years that the Court will examine this particular issue.
