Can Electronic Information Be Kept Secret?
April 28, 2005
The term electronic secret isn't an oxymoron, but lately, it does seem that storing data digitally is incompatible with keeping that data confidential. <br>While victims of the disclosure of personal information may have concealed past security flaws, California's path-blazing law requiring disclosure of releases of personal information has forced public announcement of many recent incidents. While that law was once a seemingly onerous exception, calls for similar laws have spread among the states and in Washington, DC.
Copy Control
April 28, 2005
When Static Control Components Inc., a small, family-owned printing-supply business, was sued under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), Seth Greenstein was surprised. The 49-year-old partner in the Washington, DC, office of Chicago's McDermott Will & Emery thought he had the DMCA down cold. Still, it took him nearly a year to get an injunction against the company lifted.
Assumption Of Software Licenses In Bankruptcy
April 28, 2005
Is a software license assumable by a licensee in the event the licensee seeks bankruptcy protection? <br>A recent Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling has demonstrated the critical importance of this question to software licensees. The risk of nonassumption may prove quite significant. This article discusses this risk and suggests a potential license provision addressing the risk.
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.
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.
A Look At <i>Production Resources</i>
April 27, 2005
In the current environment of increasing scrutiny of corporate behavior after corporate scandals such as Enron and Worldcom, lawsuits brought by creditors for breach of the fiduciary duties owed to them by officers and directors have increased significantly. The suits are taking center stage on the dockets of bankruptcy courts and state courts alike, and receive much public attention across the country. Against this backdrop, the Delaware Court of Chancery's November opinion in <i>Production Resources Group, L.L.C. v. NCT Group, Inc.</i> is likely to be widely cited. This lengthy and scholarly opinion also is likely to be misconstrued by many bankruptcy practitioners as signaling a retreat from settled law that directors and officers of insolvent Delaware corporations owe fiduciary duties to creditors. This article demonstrates that such a reading of Production Resources is incorrect.
How to Avoid Class Litigation
April 27, 2005
In the past year, large settlements of "pattern or practice" employment discrimination claims against several major companies, and the largest civil rights class action suit in American history against Wal-Mart Stores, have prompted questions about what employers can do to avoid being the next target. This article lists key indicators in determining whether a company is in danger of class litigation.
Ruling May Increase Age Bias Suits
April 27, 2005
Federal courts most likely will see an increase in age discrimination cases with so-called disparate impact claims, but employers will be able defend themselves successfully in many of them as a result of a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision. The High Court on March 30 held that disparate impact claims -- those that allege that a facially neutral policy adversely affects a protected class -- can be brought under the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). <i>Smith v. City of Jackson<i>, No. 03-1160.
