Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Lessens for Counsel After Hewlett-Packard
Indictments and resignations following an internal investigation are not necessarily surprising. In the case of the Hewlett-Packard ('HP') investigation, however, it's the investigators who are in dire straits. In the months since HP publicly announced that it had conducted an internal investigation into news leaks by corporate directors, its Chairman and General Counsel have resigned, criminal charges have been filed against those involved in the investigation, and one person has pled guilty. HP exemplifies the pitfalls and problems that can result from an internal investigation itself, for both the company and its counsel. As one Congressman asked: 'Where were the lawyers? There were red flags waving all over the place,' but 'none of the lawyers stepped up to their responsibilities.' Hewlett-Packard's Pretexting Scandal Before the H. Subcomm. on Oversight and Investigations, 109th Cong. (2006) (statement of Rep. John D. Dingell).
HP serves as an example of how not to conduct an internal investigation. The two overarching lessons it offers are that investigations are jeopardized when not done for a valid purpose ' which means, among other things, that they must not be driven by corporate politics ' and when they do not follow a valid process. If the purpose or process of the investigation is compromised, the consequences for a corporation and counsel may be worse than doing nothing at all.
Background
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?