Internet Disclosures Can Cost Your Company
March 29, 2006
As the Internet opens pathways to doing business that could scarcely be imagined a decade ago, it also presents increasing dangers to public companies in the form of new liability risks. The instantaneous nature of the Internet can be both boon and bane to companies seeking to harness it to provide information to, and create goodwill with, shareholders. Not only can information be disseminated over the Net in a fraction of a second for worldwide viewing, but it has become a predominant source of investment news. Financial updates, product developments, information tidbits, even rumors ' all are now posted 24/7 on the Web for consumption by anyone, including investors who are poised to take advantage of the latest intelligence.
Final Military Leave Regulations Issued By DOL
March 28, 2006
On Dec. 19, 2005, 11 years after Congress enacted the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994, as amended (USERRA), the U.S. Department of Labor issued final regulations under USERRA which became effective Jan. 18, 2006. The final regulations can be found at 20 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 1002. The DOL suggests these final regulations do not impose any new obligations on employers, but rather, serve as an implementation of the statutory requirements, as well as to clarify and interpret areas of the law. However, these regulations, the first ever issued under USERRA, turn the internal guidance of the DOL into binding regulations.
Is Your Intellectual Property Portfolio Primed and Ready For A Financing Event?
March 28, 2006
A corporate lawyer must address a myriad of issues when called on to assist in a merger, acquisition or corporate financing transaction. If the company being acquired or financed has intellectual property assets, the first order of business should be to enlist the aid of IP counsel. <br>Although it is likely in transactions of this type that corporate counsel will experience some degree of sleep deficit, hopefully there will be fewer sleepless nights if an IP attorney is part of the due diligence team. Certain IP-related issues are readily dealt with by experienced corporate counsel. Frequently, however, corporate counsel lacks the time, specific IP legal expertise, or technology-specific knowledge required to identify and resolve issues involving intellectual property assets ' issues that may significantly affect the valuation of the company involved in the corporate transaction.
The Company's Right To Know v. The Anonymous Critic's Right To Remain Unknown
March 28, 2006
This question is becoming increasingly important with the proliferation of blogs and Web postings for corporate criticism ' from wakeupwal mart.com to www.googlereallysucks.blogspot.com. And whether companies and their in-house counsel pursue actions against bloggers in these cases involves more than the usual assessment of opportunity costs and the pure business interests of the company. There are limits to the rights of companies to compel an Internet Service Provider (ISP) to reveal the name of its customer, particularly when the ISP customer wishes to remain anonymous. This article explores what the courts are requiring companies to show before they will call for an ISP to divulge a blogger's identity and provides some guidelines in evaluating whether to pursue such a strategy.
Looking Ahead To The 2006 Proxy Season
March 28, 2006
As the 2006 proxy season gets underway, shareholder activism shows no signs of slowing. Over the last few years, high-profile corporate scandals and news stories about executive excess and corporate waste have compelled many investors to seek ' or demand ' a more active role in corporate governance matters of the companies they own. Now that most companies have implemented the changes required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and the stock exchanges, the agenda of the shareholder activist is changing.
'Improper Benefit' Key To SEC Policy
March 28, 2006
On January 4, Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Christopher Cox announced the SEC's unanimously adopted policy on the use of the its enforcement powers to impose monetary penalties on public companies for securities law violations. According to the policy, when deciding whether to impose fines, the SEC will focus on whether a corporation's violation provided an improper benefit to the company and its shareholders. If so, the SEC will be inclined to seek fines to deter future conduct. Conversely, the SEC will be less likely to pursue fines in cases where they would result in further harm to shareholders already injured by a corporation's actions. This article examines the new SEC policy regarding fines and its implications for corporations and shareholders.
The Leasing Hotline
March 28, 2006
Highlights of the latest commercial leasing cases from around the country.
Understanding the Issues in Leasing Office Space for or to Federal Governmental Entities
March 28, 2006
Several federal agencies and independent agencies and commissions have leasing authority granted by the U.S. Congress (<i>ie</i>, NASA for specific space needs; FDIC; SEC; U.S. Military for recruitment stations and other specific needs; Smithsonian Institution and others). The General Services Administration ('GSA') provides a large percentage of the commercial leasing space needs for the balance of governmental entities and certain services for even those within their own authority. The GSA has recently retained third-party brokerage firms on a national basis to assist the government in its leasing of office space. As more brokers — and, in the future, lawyers — are asked to assist the government with its space needs, an understanding of the leasing issues specific to the government is required. This article details some of these issues, and suggests ways to address them in your lease.
The Doctrine of Implied Co-Insureds
March 28, 2006
Over the past several decades, federal and state courts nationwide have heard cases where the implied co-insureds doctrine has been asserted and have come to totally different conclusions. The doctrine holds that an insurer may not bring suit by way of subrogation against a tenant who negligently or willfully causes damages to property insured under an insurance policy procured by a landlord on the ground that the tenant is a co-insured under that policy. Recently, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York considered a case involving the implications of the implied co-insureds doctrine and the events of Sept. 11, 2001.
