Is Your Intellectual Property Portfolio Primed and Ready For A Financing Event?
March 28, 2006
A corporate lawyer must address a myriad of issues when called on to assist in a merger, acquisition or corporate financing transaction. If the company being acquired or financed has intellectual property assets, the first order of business should be to enlist the aid of IP counsel. <br>Although it is likely in transactions of this type that corporate counsel will experience some degree of sleep deficit, hopefully there will be fewer sleepless nights if an IP attorney is part of the due diligence team. Certain IP-related issues are readily dealt with by experienced corporate counsel. Frequently, however, corporate counsel lacks the time, specific IP legal expertise, or technology-specific knowledge required to identify and resolve issues involving intellectual property assets ' issues that may significantly affect the valuation of the company involved in the corporate transaction.
The Company's Right To Know v. The Anonymous Critic's Right To Remain Unknown
March 28, 2006
This question is becoming increasingly important with the proliferation of blogs and Web postings for corporate criticism ' from wakeupwal mart.com to www.googlereallysucks.blogspot.com. And whether companies and their in-house counsel pursue actions against bloggers in these cases involves more than the usual assessment of opportunity costs and the pure business interests of the company. There are limits to the rights of companies to compel an Internet Service Provider (ISP) to reveal the name of its customer, particularly when the ISP customer wishes to remain anonymous. This article explores what the courts are requiring companies to show before they will call for an ISP to divulge a blogger's identity and provides some guidelines in evaluating whether to pursue such a strategy.
Looking Ahead To The 2006 Proxy Season
March 28, 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 and the stock exchanges, the agenda of the shareholder activist is changing.
'Improper Benefit' Key To SEC Policy
March 28, 2006
On January 4, Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Christopher Cox announced the SEC's unanimously adopted policy on the use of the its enforcement powers to impose monetary penalties on public companies for securities law violations. According to the policy, when deciding whether to impose fines, the SEC will focus on whether a corporation's violation provided an improper benefit to the company and its shareholders. If so, the SEC will be inclined to seek fines to deter future conduct. Conversely, the SEC will be less likely to pursue fines in cases where they would result in further harm to shareholders already injured by a corporation's actions. This article examines the new SEC policy regarding fines and its implications for corporations and shareholders.
Civil RICO Claims And Immigration Law Violations
February 27, 2006
Can a U.S. corporation and agents acting on its behalf constitute an "enterprise" under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. ''1961-1969 (RICO)? If the answer is yes, U.S. corporations which use outside entities to carry out any of their business functions could find themselves liable under RICO for a broader range of corporate conduct than ever before, which would almost certainly have a chilling effect on U.S. business activities. So far, the Courts of Appeals have split when addressing this question. However, as is customary when there is a conflict in the Circuits on an important federal issue, the U.S. Supreme Court recently agreed to resolve this conflict in <i>Mohawk Industries, Inc. v. Shirley Williams et al.</i>, and will soon provide much-needed guidance.
Five Tech Steps For GCs To Nip Compliance Issues In The Bud
February 27, 2006
Good business practice requires that companies take steps to ensure that their employees comply with company policies as well as with the laws, rules, and regulations that apply to them and their industry. An increasingly important part of that practice involves monitoring and storing electronic documents, including e-mails and their attachments and managing these documents throughout the information lifecycle. While an electronic document may have a direct business use of only a few minutes ' perhaps to signal agreement to a contract term ' this same document may have an afterlife of many years, during which it needs to be retained and managed.
Libeling Lawnmowers?
February 27, 2006
The tort of commercial disparagement falls generally within the penumbra of libel and slander-related claims, although it is overshadowed by the more commonly recognized version of the tort relating to personal claims (like those celebrities frequently bring against supermarket tabloids). Yet not only are claims based upon the libeling of an object a legitimate cause of action, they can result in verdicts for plaintiffs. A better understanding of this little-known tort is necessary if a company is to evade the risks it poses.
Building A State- of-the-Art Anti-Bribery Program
February 27, 2006
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. <br>To mitigate the risk arising out of events like these, every company operating internationally should have a compliance program. The critical elements of a robust program are clear. With the right combination of leadership, training, and follow-up, companies can increase their chances of preventing or catching employees determined to break the law. An effective anti-bribery program need not be expensive or labor-intensive, but it does require management commitment, a systematic roll-out, widespread training, and diligent follow-up.
Hotline
February 02, 2006
Government supervision of cleanup is part of the cost of pollutingIn an 8-2 en banc decision, the Third Circuit has overruled its own precedent and held…
Sarbanes Oxley And The Non-Public Subsidiary: A Non-Sequitur?
February 02, 2006
By now, corporate counselors are well acquainted with the fact that the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) and its whistleblower protections apply to publicly traded companies. What is less well known is that the Sarbanes-Oxley whistleblower protections can also apply to non-public subsidiaries of publicly traded companies. Although the Department of Labor Administrative Review Board noted that it has not addressed the issue at the appellate level, a number of OSHA Administrative Law Judges (who hear SOX whistleblower cases at the trial level) have done so, and their decisions uniformly hold that SOX <i>can</i> protect the employees of <i>non-public subsidiaries</i> of publicly traded companies under certain circumstances. Those decisions also provide practical guidance for corporate counselors who want to limit SOX coverage strictly to the publicly-traded parent.
