What Would Samuel Alito's Confirmation Mean for Same-Sex Couples?
November 29, 2005
Senate hearings on the nomination of Samuel A. Alito, Jr., for the U.S. Supreme Court will not begin until Jan. 9, 2006, and liberal advocates are using the intervening time to engage in an uphill fight to challenge his confirmation. In particular, Alito's notions of privacy rights and the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution have been cited by critics in the context of issues such as abortion and civil rights, respectively. Yet these same principles are the critical legal avenues that the LGBT community has utilized to expand rights over the past 20 years, suggesting that Alito's presence on the Court might shift the balance on LGBT rights issues in the future.
Katrina and the New Insolvency Law
November 28, 2005
Though Hurricane Katrina may flood bankruptcy courts with new filings from its victims, experts differ over whether the new Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005, which took effect in October, will blow away small businesses in the Gulf Coast region.
Employee Relief in the Aftermath of Katrina
November 28, 2005
Both established and recently enacted laws may offer aid and protection to employees affected by natural disasters such as Hurricane Katrina. Employees affected by natural disasters such as Katrina may be protected under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) if they suffer from a disability as the result of the event, or may be eligible for leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA" if they or a family member have suffered a serious health condition as the result of the storm. Additionally, affected employees may be eligible for relief under measures enacted as a direct response to the event, such as the Katrina Emergency Tax Relief Act of 2005 (KETRA), or may seek relief from previously established assistance programs, such as unemployment insurance or the federal Disaster Unemployment Assistance program.
In the Wake of the Storm
November 28, 2005
As everyone knows, Hurricane Katrina devastated the residents and businesses of the Gulf Coast, causing massive damage and loss in Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and elsewhere. The sheer expenditure of time and resources in rebuilding the region will no doubt be enormous. In recognition of the magnitude of the disaster and the likelihood of a long and costly recovery, the federal government has taken both legislative and regulatory action in response. Many of these government actions have direct impact on employment practices.
Planning for Disaster
November 28, 2005
Devastating meteorological events such as Hurricane Katrina, or the major earthquake long prophesied for the West Coast -- only reinforce that every employer should develop and be prepared to implement a disaster plan. The specifics of plans will be as varied as employers' businesses, as they should be tailored to the products or services the company provides, its location, the number of employees it has, and the type of business disruption the company may be likely to face. Whatever its specific contours, however, the cornerstone of any emergency management plan is ensuring that a business can continue to run, even when its usual mode of doing business is effectively shut down. Far from being a knee-jerk responses to sensational events, such preparations should be considered just another form of business contingency planning.
Enlarging Scope of Disaster Plans
November 28, 2005
Considering how much damage can result from something as innocuous as a faulty sprinkler system, it may be understandable that many law firm disaster planners previously gave their first attention to common threats, and then never got around to considering large-scale disasters. Firm planners could pat themselves on the back if they maintained proper fire safeguards, kept the firm properly insured, arranged for regular backups of key data files, and the like.
Building a State-of-the-Art Anti-Bribery Program
November 28, 2005
Anti-bribery laws have serious consequences for ordinary companies doing business internationally. Violations come to light during routine M&A due diligence, when competitors complain or employees blow the whistle, or when companies voluntarily disclose as a part of their Sarbanes-Oxley reporting obligations. When they do come to light, strong internal controls may shield executives from some liability and restore confidence amongst shareholders and regulators.
Compliance Hotline
November 28, 2005
Recent rulings of importance to you and your practice.
First Decision to Directly Address the Right to Enforce
November 28, 2005
On Sept. 27, 2005, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania was the first federal court to address whether private plaintiffs have the right to sue under Section 304 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX). U.S. District Judge Stewart Dalzell concluded that Section 304 "does not provide a private right of action for shareholders to file a derivative suit." <i>Neer v. Pelino</i>, No. 04-4791, 2005 WL 2434685 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 27, 2005). Accordingly, only the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) may bring an action to enforce Section 304.
Quarterly State Compliance Review
November 28, 2005
All corporations and other statutory business entities must comply with the provisions of their home states' corporation or other business entity law. These laws are constantly being amended by the legislatures and interpreted by the courts. This edition of the Quarterly State Compliance Review will look at some amendments to business entity laws that went into effect during the last three months and will review some court cases interpreting these statutes that were decided during that period.
