The Challenge of Electronic Records Corporate Compliance
June 01, 2005
Legal standards regarding electronic discovery and document retention have recently undergone a rapid transformation. Increased regulatory oversight of corporations ' and resulting recordkeeping obligations ' coupled with the increasing volume of electronic communication have created new challenges with regard to document retention and production. More than 99% of information is now being created and stored electronically. Anything that can store, transmit, replay or access electronic data may potentially hold useful corporate records and electronic evidence. Recently, courts and regulators have issued a multitude of new obligations requiring document retention that attempt to define and reconcile the duties of parties and counsel with regard to electronic documents as the judiciary struggles to keep pace with technology. In determining whether a document should, or is required to, be kept, the focus should not and cannot be on the media ' <i>ie</i>, whether it is an e-mail, paper copy, facsimile, instant message, text file, or a Web site. Rather, the relevant question is what information is contained in that document.
Ruling May Increase Age Bias Suits
June 01, 2005
Federal courts most likely will see an increase in age discrimination cases with so-called disparate impact claims, but employers will be able defend themselves successfully in many of them as a result of a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision. The High Court on March 30 held that disparate impact claims ' those that allege that a facially neutral policy adversely affects a protected class ' can be brought under the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA).
'But That Wasn't The Deal!'
June 01, 2005
In the not too distant past, the only way business people could communicate in a real time, convenient and spontaneous way was through face-to-face meetings and telephone conversations. When the all-too-common dispute arose as to who said what to whom, the traditional "my word against your word" battle would play itself out. <br>Fast-forward to the 21st century, where e-mail ' easy, instant, and universally accepted ' has become virtually the default mode of communication. What was once an unverifiable conversation is now a transaction set forth in print. As a result, the "my word against your word" conundrum becomes more of a contest between e-mails, as opposed to a competition between the memories of testifying witnesses.
New HSR Rules for Transactions Involving Partnerships and LLCs
June 01, 2005
Forget what you know about the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act (HSR) and partnerships. Forget what you know about HSR and LLCs. The rules have changed ' again. The good news is that the rules make more sense, and certain exemptions to the filing requirements have been codified or expanded. The bad news is that a small number of deals that used to slide under the HSR radar may now be caught. More strategically speaking, the rules now provide more opportunities to "choose" whether your next joint venture will be subjected to substantive agency review under the HSR scheme, heightening the value of HSR counselors' advice on structure issues at early planning stages.
Property Taxation Without Services
May 31, 2005
New York municipalities have often conditioned development approvals on developers' agreements to provide services ordinarily provided by the municipality. These agreements are typically silent on the tax consequences of the municipality's failure to provide services. Under what circumstances, then, can landowners challenge the municipality's power to collect taxes for services the municipality does not provide? Two cases recently decided -- one by the Court of Appeals and one by the Second Department -- shed light on that question.
Development
May 31, 2005
Recent rulings you need to know.
Index
May 31, 2005
Everything contained in this issue in an easy-to-read list.
Covenants Not To Compete: For Everyone At The Firm Except Attorneys?
May 31, 2005
A covenant not to compete is an increasingly popular device employers use to bind employees not to work for, or as, a direct competitor. Such covenants are most often found in employment contracts, but they can also be a separate document, signed by the employee at hiring, during employment, or upon leaving. However, in many states, a covenant not to compete cannot stand alone as a binding agreement, but must be ancillary to an employment or other type of contract that provides some benefit to the employee. <br>While covenants not to compete may be used by employers in certain court-delineated circumstances, ethical rules specifically bar the application of such restrictive covenants to attorneys.
