Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

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

Search


Ontario Government Amends Franchise Regulations
Certain defects in the regulations under the Arthur Wishart Act (Franchise Disclosure), 2000 (the "Wishart Act") have been apparent to many in Canada's franchise community since the Wishart Act came into full effect on Jan. 31, 2001. Now, the Ontario government, through the Ministry of Consumer and Business Services, has released amendments to the regulations under the Wishart Act effective March 22, 2004.
Court Watch
Highlights of the latest franchising cases from around the country.
Sometimes, Breaking Up Is Hard to Do: Termination of a Franchise Relationship Requires Attention to State Law, Defenses, and Other Issues
Like the end of any relationship, the termination of a franchise can be an ordeal. In some instances, franchisors may unwittingly complicate the process by failing to safeguard their own rights or by violating statutory protections afforded to the franchisee. In franchising, the best-laid plans for termination are laid early and consider issues related to franchise law and litigation.
News Briefs
Highlights of the latest franchising news from around the country.
Business Crimes Hotline
Cases of interest to you and your practice.
Auditing the Effectiveness of Your AML Program
The Federal Reserve Board and the New York Department of Banking have adopted a strict-review standard in their evaluation of the effectiveness of the Anti-Money Laundering (AML) compliance programs of financial institutions. Recent enforcement actions demonstrate that regulators pay particular attention to the effectiveness of Suspicious Activity Reporting (SAR) and Currency Transaction Reporting (CTR) as key components. In addition, an effective audit program must focus on the other essentials: Know Your Customer (KYC), Training, and Testing. How can you be sure that the institution you advise is prepared for a money laundering audit?
Risky Business
Third-party facilitators have played a critical role in allowing corporate misconduct to happen," according to Deputy Attorney General James B. Comey, Jr., head of the Justice Department's Corporate Fraud Task Force. Stephen Cutler, Director of Enforcement for the SEC, has warned that financial institutions violate the federal securities laws by "contributing to fraudulent accounting and manipulated financial results" of public companies. In a recent report, the Enron bankruptcy examiner described a financial institution as an "enabler" of violations by Enron's officers. In the Sarbanes-Oxley era, the government is not only rounding up the direct violators, but has also brought aiding-and-abetting charges against companies that entered into certain business transactions with other companies accused of securities violations, even though the alleged abettors themselves filed honest reports with the SEC.
In The Courts
Recent cases of interest to you and your practice.
Mixed Messages from Justice
The very public prosecution of Arthur Anderson LLP demonstrated the willingness of the Department of Justice (DOJ) to bring criminal charges against organizations no matter how large and prominent or how severe the collateral consequences. Under the doctrine of respondeat superior, moreover, the government has breathtakingly broad power to convict an organization based solely on misconduct by even just one employee. So, the reality is that corporate counsel must assess the potential criminal exposure of the entire corporation in nearly every government investigation of an employee. Assessing exposure has, in recent years, involved the factors set forth in the Holder and Thompson memos (June 16, 1999 and Jan. 20, 2003) on the "Principles of Federal Prosecution of Business Organizations." Recent pronouncements by the DOJ, however, cast some doubt on the continued significance of the Thompson Memo and have made it harder to assess a corporation's criminal exposure.
Can Law Firm Partners Sue the Firm for Employment Discrimination?
Part One of this article discussed why law firms are susceptible to discrimination suits by their partners ' especially large firms. It also covered the threshold requirements for law firm partners to do so. In Part Two, the authors examine case law on determining whether a partner is an "employee" and how a firm's size and type of ownership can affect a partner's ability to sue for employment discrimination.

MOST POPULAR STORIES

  • Coverage Issues Stemming from Dry Cleaner Contamination Suits
    In recent years, there has been a growing number of dry cleaners claiming to be "organic," "green," or "eco-friendly." While that may be true with respect to some, many dry cleaners continue to use a cleaning method involving the use of a solvent called perchloroethylene, commonly known as perc. And, there seems to be an increasing number of lawsuits stemming from environmental problems associated with historic dry cleaning operations utilizing this chemical.
    Read More ›
  • The Flight to Quality and Workplace Experience
    That the pace of change is "accelerating" is surely an understatement. What seemed almost a near certainty a year ago — that law firms would fully and permanently embrace work-from-home — is experiencing a seeming reversal. While many firms have, in fact, embraced hybrid operations, the meaning of hybrid has evolved from "office optional," to an average required 2 days a week, to now many firms coming out with four-day work week mandates — this time, with teeth.
    Read More ›
  • AI or Not To AI: Observations from Legalweek NY 2023
    This year at Legalweek, there was little doubt on what the annual takeaway topic would be. As much as I tried to avoid it for fear of beating the proverbial dead horse, it was impossible not to talk about generative AI, ChatGPT, and all that goes with it. Some fascinating discussions were had and many aspects of AI were uncovered.
    Read More ›
  • The Powerful Impact of The Non-Foreclosure Notice of Pendency
    RPAPL ' 1331 and RPAPL ' 1403 Notices of Pendency are requisite elements for foreclosing a mortgage. <i>See, Chiarelli v. Kotsifos</i>, 5 A.D.3d 345 (a notice of pendency is a prerequisite to obtaining a judgment in a mortgage foreclosure action); <i>Campbell v. Smith</i>, 309 A.D.2d 581, 582 (a notice of pendency is required in a foreclosure action under RPAPL Article 13). In contrast, an ex parte CPLR Article 65 Notice of Pendency (the "Notice") is not required but it is a significant tool in an action claiming title to, or an interest in or the use or enjoyment of, another's land. The filer does not have to make a meritorious showing or post a bond. Article 65 provides mechanisms for the defendant-owner to vacate the Notice that caused an unilaterally imposed restraint on its realty. But, recent case law establishes the near futility of such efforts if the plaintiff has satisfied the minimal statutory requisites for filing the Notice.
    Read More ›