How Courts Handle Equitable Distribution
January 27, 2006
The equitable distribution of the appreciation in value of the separately owned or separate property marital residence raises some unique issues. Real estate is generally considered to be a "passive" asset that increases in value mainly as a result of passive market forces rather than due to the "active" efforts of either spouse. Accordingly, the passive appreciation of such an asset would likewise remain the titled spouse's separate property, not subject to equitable distribution. Nevertheless, courts often distribute a portion of the appreciation to the non-titled spouse who resided in the separately owned marital residence. Perhaps courts have done so because, were it not for the titled spouse's residence, the parties would have presumably purchased a joint residence -- often one of the most valuable assets in the marital estate -- and would have shared in the appreciation that accumulated during the years of their economic partnership. Thus, courts have often awarded the non-titled spouse a share of the appreciation in a separately owned marital residence even when the non-titled spouse is unable to show that any efforts on his/her part contributed directly to the increase in value. These courts also seem to recognize that the marital "home" is something to which both parties to a marriage contribute simply by virtue of their economic partnership and that the value of certain contributions are difficult if not impossible to quantify.
Next-Generation CRM: Achieving the True 360-Degree Client View
January 27, 2006
As law firms grow in technological sophistication, the issue is no longer whether a firm is using a CRM system, but rather how they are generating greater ROI. Integrating with other key systems that allow users to take advantage of valuable content residing elsewhere in the firm is an important piece of this equation. How will next-generation CRM deliver a true 360-degree view of the marketplace and what features will help generate the most value from its content?
Best Option for E-Mail Recall, and Other Tips
January 27, 2006
If e-mail is so ubiquitous in our lives, why don't more people follow some general, common sense guidelines for composing, addressing and sending e-mails? This isn't a column on security; it's a look at some fundamental concepts that will keep you savvy about your e-mail habits.
Med Mal News
January 27, 2006
The latest news of interest to you and your practice.
Over-Assertion of Attorney-Client Privilege
January 26, 2006
Buried deep within the 69-page superseding indictment in the KPMG tax fraud case lies a development with the potential to chill the assertion of the attorney-client privilege by defense attorneys in criminal conspiracy cases. In the conspiracy count in <i>United States v. Stein et al.<i>, the wrongful assertion of the attorney-client privilege has been charged as a central aspect of the crime itself, both as part of the means and methods of the conspiracy and as an overt act in furtherance. This aggressive charging decision may cause some members of the defense bar to think twice about asserting the privilege in close cases -- even where it is being asserted legitimately -- for fear that their claim of privilege may overreach, thus inadvertently implicating them in the underlying conspiracy.
Employers and Employees
January 26, 2006
When I entered law practice in 1971, it was common in corporate criminal investigations for a single law firm to represent the target corporation and all its relevant employees. They hung together lest they hang separately. Over time, practice changed, and such joint-representation arrangements mostly disappeared. The old paradigm was succeeded by a new one, which recognized the separate interests of the corporation and each of its relevant employees, but also provided a large measure of mutual support and good will on the defense side. This paradigm, too, has been attacked by prosecutors and now has largely disappeared in major federal and some state investigations. It has been succeeded by a new, far harsher paradigm.
Employers and Employees
January 26, 2006
When I entered law practice in 1971, it was common in corporate criminal investigations for a single law firm to represent the target corporation and all its relevant employees. They hung together lest they hang separately. Over time, practice changed, and such joint-representation arrangements mostly disappeared. The old paradigm was succeeded by a new one, which recognized the separate interests of the corporation and each of its relevant employees, but also provided a large measure of mutual support and good will on the defense side. This paradigm, too, has been attacked by prosecutors and now has largely disappeared in major federal and some state investigations. It has been succeeded by a new, far harsher paradigm.
Looking Ahead to The 2006 Proxy Season
January 26, 2006
As the 2006 proxy season gets underway, shareholder activism shows no signs of slowing. Over the last few years, high-profile corporate scandals and news stories about executive excess and corporate waste have compelled many investors to seek -- or demand -- a more active role in corporate governance matters of the companies they own. Now that most companies have implemented the changes required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX) and the stock exchanges, the agenda of the shareholder activist is changing.
Of Mice and Men: The Business Judgment Rule After The <i>Disney </i>Decision
January 26, 2006
Last month, we discussed the Delaware Court of Chancery decision in <i>In re The Walt Disney Co. Derivative Litigation</i>, 2005 WL 2056651 (Del. Ch. Aug. 9, 2005), a case that had drawn intense media attention (The case currently is on appeal to the Delaware Supreme Court.) We noted that the severance package given Disney president Michael Ovitz amounted to approximately $140 million in cash and vested stock options, which was paid to Ovitz upon the termination of his employment under a "no-fault" termination provision in his employment agreement. The court found that no Disney board member was liable for violating his or her fiduciary duties with respect to the hiring, and then the firing after a little more than 1 year, of Michael Ovitz. Now the question is: What has been learned? We continue the article with a discussion of fiduciary conduct.
