Search

Reversing both a Northampton County, PA, trial court and a three-judge panel of the Superior Court, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has ruled unanimously ' in a case of first impression ' that the adult daughter of a failed marriage should not be able to sue her father to enforce a child support provision from her parents' property settlement agreement that would benefit her directly. <i>Chen v. Chen</i>, No. 89 MAP 2004, March 20, 2006.

In many divorces, the 'asset value' of business equity is the largest money piece of the divisible marital pie. Hiring a business valuation expert to appraise the equity, or rights, owned by the parties as of a date in time is normal practice. Yet sometimes there are issues underneath the valuation opinion that 'just do not seem right.'

These are challenging times for those of us who represent and defend corporations in litigation. The recent criminal convictions of Enron's Ken Lay and Jeffrey Skilling only confirm what we have known for quite some time ' jurors are skeptical of, and even hostile toward, corporations and corporate executives. <br>But in order to formulate an effective defense strategy, it is important to understand why jurors hold these attitudes.

Perhaps one of the most important services an attorney can provide to a client is discerning the merits of a case and the likely outcomes during the course of litigation. But what is the best way to go about evaluating a case? And if, as experience has taught, there is no 'best' way to evaluate a case, are there some really good ones that can be counted on to give the client sound advice over a broad range of potential types of cases?

In the post-Enron era, corporate counsel are seeing more government investigations that lead to 'deferred prosecution agreements' (DPAs). In these arrangements, the government formally accuses a company of criminal conduct, but agrees to hold the prosecution in abeyance pending the company's efforts to make amends. These cases include such well-known names as KPMG, Computer Asso-ciates and Bristol Myers Squibb. <br>Why are these settlements suddenly coming onto the scene? In a sense, they are not entirely new.

Recent decisions that may affect your practice.

National rulings of interest.

Much has been written recently about the government's continued insistence, in both criminal and SEC enforcement investigations, that corporations waive the attorney-client privilege in order to 'fully cooperate' with the government. This pressure has been augmented by the increasing reluctance of auditors for public companies to sign off on their audits unless they review the client's internal investigatory report ' an act that also may cause waiver of the privilege. See, In re: Subpoena Duces Tecum Served on Willkie Farr &amp; Gallagher, (1997 WL 118369 (SDNY 1997)). What has received less attention is the countervailing pressure for truth and candor toward prospective witnesses, not only by government attorneys in the context of parallel criminal and civil investigations, but also by private attorneys when conducting corporate internal investigations.<br>The increased likelihood in the post Sarbanes-Oxley world that a corporation will waive the privilege and produce the substance of its internal investigation, including its investigative reports, needs to be juxtaposed with the duty to be honest with a corporation's employees when conducting an internal investigation. The relationship of these two duties raises serious doubt that the standard Upjohn warnings ' ie, we represent the company, our conversation is privileged, but the company may 'waive' the privilege in its sole discretion ' is consistent with the reasonable expectations of employees and a lawyer's ethical duty to be honest and candid.

On May 30, the U.S. Supreme Court decided, in <i>Garcetti v. Ceballos</i>, 2006 WL 1458026, 24 IER Cases 737, that public employees do not enjoy First Amendment protections when speaking in the course of their official duties. While drawing strong reactions as a restriction on the free speech rights of government whistleblowers, the ruling may also be viewed in a different light ' as giving public whistleblowers the same rights as private ones.

Most companies have taken care to ensure that new and departing employees have completed Human Resource files with nondisclosure agreements, non-competition agreements (where applicable), invention and assignment agreements and various other agreements, acknowledgements and forms. Are companies doing enough to protect themselves from intellectual property theft by departing employees and consultants?