Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Features
A new European Union law coming online next year will force multinationals operating in Europe to set up in-house, shop-level worker groups that, to an American, look a lot like independent unions. The new law threatens to tie a multinational's hands whenever it decides, in the future, to change anything in its European operations. The good news is that the new law offers substantial freedom to structure worker groups in as business-friendly a way as you want. The catch: You can't delegate the "works councils" problem down to your local European HR, and you have to implement your headquarters-driven strategy this year, during a special window period. This article summarizes the new law, and then explains the "best practices" strategy of creating a works councils network template that takes advantage of the law's window-period that grandfathers-in works councils structured before tough regulations get issued later.
Features
But these are my personal notes ...." Virtually every litigator has heard this plea from an executive responding to discovery. It is an almost reflexive reaction stemming from the popular myth that "personal" somehow equals "protected," and often comes from the most sophisticated of corporate directors and high-level management. Too often lawyers hear executives boast about their note-taking prowess while pointing to rows and rows of historical notebooks that they assembled over the years. Many executives learn too late that very little of their "personal" board meeting notes are privileged, and the privilege that might attach to some portions does not even belong to them. More and more frequently in this post-Enron environment, privileged materials are being disclosed by the owner of the privilege ' the corporation ' due to stricter standards for company cooperation in government investigations, particularly in civil investigations by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and criminal inquiries by the U.S. Department of Justice.
Features
Recent developments of interest to corporate counsel.
Features
The U.S. Supreme Court continues to keep employers on their toes by dealing with cases involving employment issues this term. During the first week of December, the Court issued its decision in <i>Raytheon Co. v. Hernandez</i>, No. 02-749, ___ S. Ct. ___ (2003), an ADA case involving the legality of an employer policy prohibiting the rehire of individuals fired for violating the employer's drug use policy. Also, the Court agreed to consider two other employment cases. First, in <i>Pennsylvania State Police v. Suders</i>, the Court will decide whether constructive discharge is a "tangible employment action" for purposes of sexual harassment claims. Second, in <i>Central Laborers' Pension Fund v. Heinz</i>, the Court will tackle an issue involving ERISA's anti-cutback rule for pension benefits.
Features
The tragic events of 9/11 brought to the forefront a form of insurance that has great importance for the business community, but heretofore has received relatively little attention from the insurance bar — business interruption insurance. The reason is simple: Notwithstanding the high-stakes litigation over the World Trade Center's insurance claims and other claims arising out of 9/11, business interruption claims have been the subject of infrequent litigation when compared with claims involving general liability, products liability, construction, and directors' and officers' coverage.
Features
In recent years, an increasing number of companies have sought to resolve current and future liability for long-tail exposures, such as asbestos or silica, by filing prepackaged bankruptcy cases. These bankruptcy filings raise numerous insurance-related issues.
Features
Highlights of the latest insurance cases from around the country.
For emerging technology companies, a product that produces revenues is the lifeblood and should be protected at all costs. But when it comes to patent litigation, all but the largest technology companies should avoid the mind-set that they are suing to a conclusion, as either plaintiff or defendant. The objective is to make a reasonable intellectual property deal, sooner rather than later, and focus on competition in the marketplace — not the courtroom.
A lawsuit filed April 11 in the U.S. District Court in Los Angeles has grabbed the attention of the life sciences community. The key parties are three high-profile biotech developers: MedImmune, Genentech and Celltech.
Features
Cheap foreign labor has long been a frightening specter for some American industries. But these days, garment makers and steelworkers are not the only ones competing with lower-paid counterparts abroad. Spurred by the slow economy, many in-house legal departments are cutting costs by relying less on U.S. outside counsel and more on lawyers in India, New Zealand, South Korea, and other countries where professional salaries are lower.