Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
An industry-leading company recently commissioned two outside firms to perform an objective assessment of its corporate ethics program. Each assessment was extensive, involving interviews with anyone who wanted to talk, and people selected by the teams, ranging from middle management to the CEO. Collectively, the two assessments had interviews or focus groups with over 1000 people at every major location. This probably represents the most comprehensive assessment of ethics program effectiveness factors completed in 2003. (One of the assessments was completed by the law firm of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, LLP. The assessment team was led by former Senator Warren Rudman, and their findings were published on Nov. 3, 2003. The other assessment was completed by Ethical Leadership Group, and their findings were published on Oct. 23, 2003.)
A number of their findings would allow any company to conclude that its ethics program was excellent, and report, “We've got ethics covered” to its board. The findings included:
Fundamental Issues
Why is it that those who are best skilled at advocating for others are ill-equipped at advocating for their own skills and what to do about it?
There is no efficient market for the sale of bankruptcy assets. Inefficient markets yield a transactional drag, potentially dampening the ability of debtors and trustees to maximize value for creditors. This article identifies ways in which investors may more easily discover bankruptcy asset sales.
The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
Active reading comprises many daily tasks lawyers engage in, including highlighting, annotating, note taking, comparing and searching texts. It demands more than flipping or turning pages.
With trillions of dollars to keep watch over, the last thing we need is the distraction of costly litigation brought on by patent assertion entities (PAEs or "patent trolls"), companies that don't make any products but instead seek royalties by asserting their patents against those who do make products.