Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

Search


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.
Statements During Settlement Negotiations As Evidence in a Criminal Trial
November 28, 2005
Your client, a corporate executive, is being investigated in connection with whether the stock of her employer was artificially inflated. The company is in a "full cooperation mode" with the SEC and the DOJ, and is negotiating the terms of a consent decree. You learn that the company's attorneys have met with DOJ and SEC attorneys and have admitted (as they felt was necessary to maintain credibility) to certain wrongdoing by various corporate employees. Can the company's statements during negotiations be used against your client, or are they protected by Rule 408 Fed. R. Evid.?
Multiple Jeopardy
November 28, 2005
A combination of factors has coalesced to spell trouble, or at least unwelcome complications, for federal prosecutors and aspiring cooperators and their counsel in the white-collar criminal arena. The factors include the political ambitions of state attorneys general (AGs), the broad overlap of state and federal financial-fraud crimes, the fully justified emphasis of federal prosecutors on pursuing nationwide financial-fraud offenses, and the persistence of the federal courts in refusing to limit the outmoded "dual sovereignty" doctrine that allows concurrent or consecutive federal and state prosecutions for the same offenses.
In the Courts
November 28, 2005
Recent rulings of importance to you and your practice.
Business Crimes Hotline
November 28, 2005
National rulings of interest.
Cooperating with NYSE Member Reviews
November 28, 2005
The framework that prosecutors and regulators use to assess a corporation's response to corporate wrongdoing changed forever on June 16, 1999. That day, then-Deputy Attorney General Eric Holder announced DOJ's new principles for the prosecution of corporations. The so-called Holder Memorandum emphasized cooperation with prosecutors and the requirement that corporations make full and voluntary disclosure of wrongdoing if they hoped to avoid or mitigate prosecution. The twin themes of cooperation and disclosure have become the standards by which federal and state prosecutors and regulators now judge a corporation's response to instances of corporate misbehavior.
Competitive Intelligence: A Must Have
November 14, 2005
In today's evolving technological legal market, it is not enough for a law firm to perform tactically, using best practices. Competitive marketing for same client market share necessitates strategic planning. And strategic planning, in turn, mandates Competitive Intelligence (CI) initiatives tag teamed with information analysis.

MOST POPULAR STORIES

  • "Holy Fair Use, Batman": Copyright, Fair Use and the Dark Knight
    The copyright for the original versions of Winnie the Pooh and Mickey Mouse have expired. Now, members of the public can create — and are busy creating — their own works based on these beloved characters. Suppose, though, we want to tell stories using Batman for which the copyright does not expire until 2035. We'll review five hypothetical works inspired by the original Batman comic and analyze them under fair use.
    Read More ›
  • Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
    This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
    Read More ›
  • The Stranger to the Deed Rule
    In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.
    Read More ›