Non-disclosure Agreements in Venture Capital Transactions
September 03, 2003
Occasionally a venture fund will receive a request from a potential portfolio company for the venture fund to sign a non-disclosure agreement prior to commencement of due diligence. The proposed non-disclosure agreement would commit the venture fund to maintaining the confidentiality of the company's information disclosed to the venture fund in the course of the due diligence investigation. Entering into non-disclosure agreements could restrict the future investing and disclosing activities of the venture fund or its principals.
Around the Firms
September 03, 2003
Movement among major law firms and corporations.
Departing Partners: Duties and Pitfalls
September 03, 2003
A modern day fixture of the law firm is the revolving door. The increasing frequency with which partners leave law firms for new ones raises many issues concerning the permissibility of a withdrawing attorney's conduct regarding client/attorney solicitation, removal of client files or other documents and breach of anti-competition clauses in partnership agreements. In addition to adherence to the professional ethical rules, a partner is subject to a fiduciary duty to his firm and is thus constrained by such duty throughout the life of the partnership.
The Lateral Partner Process: Three Perspectives
September 03, 2003
According to <i>The American Lawyer</i>, fully 40% of partners in the AmLaw 200 firms will move laterally at least once as partners. This is an astonishing statistic, since lateral partner movement was virtually unheard of a generation ago. Freed from the stigma that once haunted a partner who abandoned his partnership, today's law partners tend to be pragmatists who no longer view their firms as homes for life. Instead, they see them as vehicles to drive their businesses to higher levels. In this article, we take a brief look at lateral partner recruitment from the different perspectives of the law firms, the candidates and the recruiters.
A Word to the Wise
September 02, 2003
Discovery of electronic communications. Employees generally cannot live without it (if they hope to state a claim), but often cannot afford to pay for it. Employers can generally afford to pay for it, but resent paying to help a plaintiff make his or her case against them. This dilemma is only further exacerbated by the proliferation of electronic communications that has made the discovery of such information very time-consuming and expensive.
Dispute Resolution Gets a Makeover
September 02, 2003
Several governmental and regulatory bodies have announced new initiatives aimed at increasing access to their dispute resolution programs, strengthening the credentials of their neutral panels, and improving the efficiency of their dispute resolution processes. These decisions were reached, in part, after evaluating success rates and feedback relating to these dispute resolution programs.
Jury Awards $5.2 Million in Disability Case
September 02, 2003
A jury awarded $5.2 million to a plaintiff whose former employer, a modeling agency, failed to accommodate her asthma, subjected her to a hostile work environment, and terminated her in retaliation for making complaints about smoking in the workplace. <i>Gallegos v. Elite Model Mgmt. Corp.</i>, No. 120577/00 (N.Y. Co. Sup. Ct. 5/14/03)
Direct Evidence Not Required in Mixed Motive Case
September 02, 2003
Last month, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a plaintiff must present direct evidence of discrimination in order to obtain a mixed-motive instruction under Title VII, as amended by the Civil Rights Act of 1991. <i>Desert Palace, Inc. v. Costa</i>, 2003 WL 21310219 (U.S. June 9, 2003) The Court unanimously held that direct evidence is not required.
