Sarbanes-Oxley Versus The Attorney-Client Privilege
November 29, 2005
Ironically, the SEC and the Department of Justice, which enforce SOX's criminal provisions, appear ready to burden the traditional ethical obligations of corporate legal counselors to keep client communications confidential in an effort to police the integrity and ethics of other corporate gatekeepers. To that end, the SEC imposes certain reporting requirements on corporate counselors, attempts to preempt state ethics rules, and DOJ prosecutors routinely pressure "target" corporations to waive the attorney-client privilege to obtain "cooperation" points. Corporate counselors must be aware of those initiatives to properly balance their competing obligations.
Beastly Beauty Contest for Preferred Providers
November 29, 2005
In this compelling snapshot of a growing trend, Eriq Gardner describes the newly expensive vetting procedures now faced by outside firms choosing to pursue business with a highly demanding large client. Gardner also touches on law business practices (<i>eg</i>, long-term fixed-fee contracting for an entire class of a client firms' litigation needs) that may bode ill for the quality of justice produced by the overall legal system
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.
News Briefs
November 03, 2005
Highlights of the latest class action cases from around the country.
Sarbanes-Oxley and Licensee Fiduciary-Based Tort Liability for Breach of Contract: City of Hope National Medical Center v. Genentech, Inc.
November 02, 2005
Over the years, courts frequently have been called upon to determine the nature and extent of the diligence required of licensees, assignees and other parties granted exclusive rights to exploit intellectual property. Dating back to Justice Benjamin N. Cardozo's opinion in <i>Wood v. Lucy, Lady Duff-Gordon</i>, 222 N.Y. 88, 118 N.E. 214 (1917), the courts consistently have held such parties to an implied promise to exercise some measure of diligence to commercialize the transferred property in those cases in which the grantor was completely reliant upon the productivity of the intellectual property user to generate royalties or other consideration.
Nebraska Supreme Court Rejects Infancy Tolling Argument for Statute of Repose
November 01, 2005
In a case of first impression, the Nebraska Supreme Court has rejected arguments that the state's product liability statute of repose should be tolled for minors. <i>Budler v. General Motors Corp.</i>, 689 N.W.2d 847 (Neb. 2004). The ruling was en banc and unanimous. The court's decision was the result of thoughtful analysis and application of well-established principles of statutory interpretation. The impact of the ruling is significant, however, given the state's long-standing public policy of preserving a minor's cause of action until he/she reaches the age of majority.
Online: Protecting Anti-Terror Research Companies from Lawsuits
November 01, 2005
Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security ("DHS") Michael Chertoff told the U.S. Chamber of Commerce that the DHS is seeking to shield more anti-terror research companies from product liability suits. Since January 2005, the DHS has overcome its reluctance to limit product liability for many research and development companies that manufacture anti-terror technology. There is still, however, debate over liability protections afforded by legislation to shield manufacturers of bioterrorism vaccines.
The Six Habits of Highly Effective Risk Management Programs
November 01, 2005
For years, a consistent front-runner on the best-seller list has been Steven Covey's, "<i>The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People</i>." Failure to be "highly effective" in managing risk can imperil drug and device manufacturers. Today's litigation is formidable. Personal injury attorneys are well connected, constantly seeking "The Next Big Thing" in product liability litigation. Many firms specialize in suing drug and device companies. There are networks on Internet forums and at legal conferences built around "how to" workshops on suing specific devices, drugs or manufacturers.
Practice Tip: Using Jury Research to Help Overcome the Challenges of Common-Sense Causation
November 01, 2005
The issue of causation is at the core of most product liability trials. The challenge for litigants, particularly defendants, is that jurors often find common-sense notions of causation more persuasive than those based on complex or scientific evidence, even though the latter may be more accurate or correct. Common-sense causation arguments are simple arguments that are consistent with lay jurors' everyday experiences. Indeed, common-sense notions of causation are correct in most of our day-to-day activities. Accordingly, jurors come to trust their common-sense notions of causation and find it disconcerting when those notions are challenged by trial counsel. The result is that jurors who are presented with competing theories of causation are often likely to prefer the common-sense theory, even if it is not correct or plausible from the perspective of science or engineering. This is especially true of jurors who are not motivated to consider and integrate a large volume of complex evidence carefully and thoughtfully.
