Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell: What Lessons Lie Here for Your Firm?
Unless you are a regular reader of legal Web sites, you might not have followed, or might not even be aware of, a suit by former Sullivan & Cromwell associate Aaron Charney against his firm, and the firm's subsequent suit against Charney. Gossip aside, the case, which settled on Oct. 25, 2007, should be noted by law firms, if for no other reason, than to learn how not to handle discrimination and retaliation complaints. This article reviews the Charney case and applicable federal cases that might apply in such situations, and points out the hidden dangers of local ordinances that attempt to regulate human behavior, and (arguably) even thought, in the workplace.
The Two Lawsuits
In January 2007, while still employed as an associate at Sullivan & Cromwell, Charney sued his employer for discrimination based upon his sexual orientation, and for retaliation in violation of Title 8 of the Administrative Code of the City of New York, the New York Human Rights Law. Sullivan & Cromwell then filed its own separate complaint (not a counterclaim) against Charney, alleging breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, and breach of client confidences. Both sides dug in their heels. How all of this public and embarrassing warfare might have been avoided is discussed below.
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?