The Class Action Fairness Act of 2005
April 27, 2005
Calling it "a model of effective, bipartisan legislation," President Bush signed the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 on Feb. 18, 2005. To achieve itsgoals, the Act significantly expands federal jurisdiction over multi-state class actions while imposing new requirements on class action settlements in federal court, such as restricting attorney fee awards when class members receive coupons instead of cash in a settlement, and requiring defendants to notify federal and state officials of any proposed class action settlement. Parties involved in class actions initiated on or after Feb. 18, 2005 should fashion their legal strategies with the Act's sweeping changes in mind.
Companies in the Crosshairs
April 27, 2005
Employee discrimination attorneys do not generally give legal advice to employers. But as lead or class counsel in more than 30 of these cases, including the Wal-Mart and Boeing cases, we can offer clues to the workplace practices that cause particular employers to become the subject of careful investigation and, in some cases, the target of litigation.
Bankruptcy Fraud in the Spotlight?
March 29, 2005
As we all know, the feds continue to investigate and prosecute fraud in the financing, accounting and operation of businesses. The Second Year Report of the President's Corporate Fraud Task Force declares that over 500 corporate fraud convictions have been obtained to date and that charges have been brought against over 60 corporate CEOs or presidents. However, executives and their counselors would do well to note that the government's will and ability to prosecute high-level management may not lessen just because a business is in extremis.
Identity Theft: The Next Corporate Liability Wave?
March 17, 2005
The nation's fastest growing crime, identity theft, is combining with greater corporate accumulation of personal data, increasingly vocal consumer anger and new state and federal laws to create significant new legal, financial and reputation risk for many companies.
Falling Stock Prices?
March 17, 2005
Open any major newspaper over the last few months and you will find a surprising number of articles detailing the significant drop in a public company's stock price in mere hours or days after the disclosure that the company has been civilly sued, be it a class action, securities fraud case, or harassment suit. The decline in a company's stock price following the disclosure of a pending lawsuit is not by any means new. Yet, the speed and extent of the decline in a company's stock appears to have greatly accelerated in recent years. As a result, public companies are now faced with a growing number of lawsuits geared principally at obtaining a speedy settlement by leveraging the lawsuit's potential impact on a company's stock value.
Employers Beware
March 17, 2005
It is a sad but true fact that employers are accused of discrimination on an almost daily basis. While most of these claims are without merit, it is critical that employers take them seriously and caution managers and supervisors that treating the complainer differently or more harshly because of the complaint is a recipe for disaster.
Mandatory Arbitration for Employee Benefits Disputes
March 17, 2005
Thanks to the well-publicized rising cost of litigation and the growing availability of alternative dispute resolution options, mandatory arbitration provisions are more popular than ever among would-be litigants. The employee benefits realm is no exception. <br>Indeed, there is a trend toward using arbitration in the benefits context that is fueled by a growing sense among practitioners that a well-crafted policy mandating arbitration of employee benefits disputes can be a useful tool to save an employer time and money.
Letter from the Editor
February 24, 2005
This month in our regular issue of Marketing The Law Firm we have an article written by one of my favorite Board members Mike Hodes, the Managing Director…
Corporate Governance
February 24, 2005
Recent amendments to the Organizational Sentencing Guidelines make several significant changes to the provisions concerning corporate compliance programs, and reinforce broader shifts taking place in the field of corporate governance. Just as the Sarbanes-Oxley Act imposes additional duties on corporate boards for the integrity of a company's financial controls, the new guidelines seek to make boards responsible for promoting the effectiveness of a corporation's legal and ethical controls. Boards of directors must assume responsibility for the effectiveness of compliance programs, which now encompass not only criminal laws but also ethics and corporate culture.
Executive Compensation: Are You In Compliance?
February 24, 2005
What does the in-house lawyer need to be doing today to be prepared for the upcoming Proxy Statement season and to ensure that his client's deferred compensation plans and agreements are in compliance with (or exempt, <i>ie</i>, grandfathered, from) IRC '409A?
