DOJ Pressure to Cut Loose Employees Under Investigation
October 30, 2006
Two months ago, the American Bar Association House of Delegates adopted a 'recommendation' stating opposition to prosecutors' and other enforcement officials' taking into consideration 'any of the following factors in making a determination of whether an organization has been cooperative in the context of a government investigation: 1) that the organization provided counsel to, or advanced, reimbursed or indemnified the legal fees and expenses of, an Employee; 2) that the organization entered into or continues to operate under a joint defense, information sharing and common interest agreement with an Employee or other represented party with whom the organization believes it has a common interest in defending against the investigation; 3) that the organization shared its records or other historical information relating to the matter under investigation with an Employee; or 4) that the organization chose to retain or otherwise declined to sanction an Employee who exercised his or her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination in response. This article discusses the recommendation and the events that led to it.
Revisiting Obviousness
October 30, 2006
Many technology companies believe the current law on obviousness hinders product development by extending patent protection to insignificant advances. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ('CAFC') reconfigured the obviousness framework established by the Supreme Court to limit the subjectivity of obviousness determinations by adding a 'teaching-suggestion-motivation' test, which is at the heart of a case the Supreme Court has recently agreed to consider. In <i>Teleflex</i>, the CAFC applied the 'teaching-suggestion-motivation' test in vacating a lower court finding of obviousness. <i>Teleflex Inc. v. KSR Intern. Co.</i>, 119 Fed.Appx. 282 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Substantially unchecked to date, this will be the first full hearing on the obviousness doctrine in more than 30 years.
What Automatic Stay?
October 30, 2006
Among the abuses of the bankruptcy system to be remedied by The Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention Consumer Protection Act of 2005 (BAPCPA) is that of serial filing. To confront this issue, BAPCPA has primarily revised ' 362 of the Bankruptcy Code by significantly amending ' 362(c)(3), and adding a new ' 362(c)(4). As of mid-April 2006, approximately 30 cases had been published interpreting these new provisions, making this area one of the more hotly litigated BAPCPA amendments to the Bankruptcy Code. The purpose of this article is to provide a brief overview of these new provisions, summarize the various issues examined by the courts to date, and provide some practical recommendations from the perspectives of debtor or creditor.
Recharacterization
October 30, 2006
In the recent case of <i>In re Dornier Aviation (North America), Inc.,</i> the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that ' 105(a) of the Bankruptcy Code provides the bankruptcy court with authority to recharacterize a claim from debt to equity. In upholding the recharacterization of a parent's $84 million claim against its wholly owned subsidiary, the Fourth Circuit made clear that form will not prevail over substance in the context of inter-company transactions. The Fourth Circuit failed, however, to provide any guidance on how inter-company transactions might be structured to avoid recharacterization under ' 105(a). This article presents one obvious, albeit not often utilized, solution: Parent corporations should collect debts due and owing from their subsidiaries to avoid the possibility of being relegated to the unenviable position of an equity investor in the event of a bankruptcy proceeding.
Recent Bankruptcy Trends
October 30, 2006
The era of 'easy money' may be coming to an end soon, as there are signs of increasing economic pressure in certain sectors of the economy. At the same time, the passage of the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 (BAPCPA), the principle provisions of which became effective in October 2005, is fundamentally changing certain aspects of the Chapter 11 process. Although no one is able to predict with certainty what will happen in the restructuring field in the near future, here are some of the signs that the bankruptcy field is about to undergo a substantial change.
Index
October 30, 2006
A complete listing of everything contained in this issue.
Divorce Lawyers' Obligation to Children
October 30, 2006
Do divorce lawyers have an obligation to disclose client confidences when it is in the best interests of the client's child to do so? The short answer of the rules of professional responsibility is 'no' because a 'yes' answer is deemed to be fundamentally inconsistent with the premises of the adversary system in which the divorce lawyer functions. The longer answer is that the rules encourage ' but do not require ' a divorce lawyer to counsel the client to authorize the disclosure because it is in the best interests of both parent and child.
FERPA, Custody, and Access to Education Records
October 30, 2006
The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 (20 USC ' 1232g), more commonly referred to as FERPA, is a federal law that protects the privacy of student education records. FERPA applies to all schools that receive public funding. FERPA's terms contradict the commonly held belief that a non-custodial parent's right to a child's education record is defined only by the text of the stipulation of settlement or court order.
