Patent Injunctions After eBay: The Bidding Is Open on Who Really Benefits
July 27, 2006
When faced with the threat of a crippling injunction, many businesses would rather pay for a patent license than spend millions litigating an uncertain result. This simple principle lies at the heart of what has been called the 'licensing-by-litigation' model, and has led to numerous battles over patent rights.
Lies, Damn Lies And M&A Fraud
July 27, 2006
In <i>ABRY Partners V, L.P. v. F&W Acquisition LLC, et al.</i>, Vice Chancellor Strine of the Delaware Court of Chancery addressed the circumstances in which a seller may contractually insulate itself in a purchase agreement from claims by the buyer for rescission and post-closing damages due to intentional misrepresentations concerning the business or assets being sold. The court held that 'when a seller intentionally misrepresents a fact embodied in a contract ' that is, when a seller lies,' Delaware public policy compels Delaware courts to disregard provisions of a contract that purport to eliminate certain remedies, including the remedy of rescission. <br>This article examines Vice Chancellor Strine's decision in ABRY and highlights some of its implications for buyers and sellers in M&A transactions.
Risks of Hiring Employees from Another Firm
July 27, 2006
The scenario is a familiar one: An individual decides to leave his current employment and accept employment with a new employer. As it turns out, the employee has signed an agreement with the former employer restricting his or her right to compete with the former employer (non-compete agreement), prohibiting him or her from soliciting employees or customers of the former employer (non-solicitation agreement) and/or requiring him or her to maintain the confidentiality of the former employer's trade secret and/or proprietary information (confidentiality agreement). This article focuses on the risks faced by the new employer in hiring such an individual.
E-discovery As a Litigation Weapon?
July 27, 2006
The proposed amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) make clear what most companies engaged in complex litigation are already keenly aware of: that 'electronically stored information' is not only discoverable but is essential to the discovery process.<br>The new rules set forth a series of actions related to e-discovery that both parties must abide by or risk the imposition of sanctions. While the exact impact of these new rules, set to become effective on Dec. 1, is unclear, it is safe to say that the millions of dollars spent on e-discovery last year are sure to increase as companies and their counsel struggle to adapt their practices.
Blogging and the Workplace
July 27, 2006
You may not know about it, but it is happening: At least one, and probably more, of your business' employees has entered the 'blogosphere.' The world of blogs, or interactive diaries posted on the Internet, has expanded exponentially over the past 3 years, and 'bloggers' cannot seem to resist the urge to talk about their jobs. These sometimes quasi-journalistic postings raise a host of concerns for employers, such as protecting a hard-won public image, safeguarding confidential information, and preventing defamation of managers and co-workers. Such concerns arise because blogs can reach millions of readers long before the employer even learns about the posting.
What Jurors Think Of American Corporations ' and What You Can Do About It
June 28, 2006
These are challenging times for those of us who represent and defend corporations in litigation. The recent criminal convictions of Enron's Ken Lay and Jeffrey Skilling only confirm what we have known for quite some time ' jurors are skeptical of, and even hostile toward, corporations and corporate executives. <br>But in order to formulate an effective defense strategy, it is important to understand why jurors hold these attitudes.
Achieving Optimal Evaluation of Business and Commercial Cases
June 28, 2006
Perhaps one of the most important services an attorney can provide to a client is discerning the merits of a case and the likely outcomes during the course of litigation. But what is the best way to go about evaluating a case? And if, as experience has taught, there is no 'best' way to evaluate a case, are there some really good ones that can be counted on to give the client sound advice over a broad range of potential types of cases?
Deferred Prosecution Agreements: What Questions Should We Be Asking?
June 28, 2006
In the post-Enron era, corporate counsel are seeing more government investigations that lead to 'deferred prosecution agreements' (DPAs). In these arrangements, the government formally accuses a company of criminal conduct, but agrees to hold the prosecution in abeyance pending the company's efforts to make amends. These cases include such well-known names as KPMG, Computer Asso-ciates and Bristol Myers Squibb. <br>Why are these settlements suddenly coming onto the scene? In a sense, they are not entirely new.
Internal Investigations: <i>Upjohn</i> Warnings Are No Longer Enough
June 28, 2006
Much has been written recently about the government's continued insistence, in both criminal and SEC enforcement investigations, that corporations waive the attorney-client privilege in order to 'fully cooperate' with the government. This pressure has been augmented by the increasing reluctance of auditors for public companies to sign off on their audits unless they review the client's internal investigatory report ' an act that also may cause waiver of the privilege. See, In re: Subpoena Duces Tecum Served on Willkie Farr & Gallagher, (1997 WL 118369 (SDNY 1997)). What has received less attention is the countervailing pressure for truth and candor toward prospective witnesses, not only by government attorneys in the context of parallel criminal and civil investigations, but also by private attorneys when conducting corporate internal investigations.<br>The increased likelihood in the post Sarbanes-Oxley world that a corporation will waive the privilege and produce the substance of its internal investigation, including its investigative reports, needs to be juxtaposed with the duty to be honest with a corporation's employees when conducting an internal investigation. The relationship of these two duties raises serious doubt that the standard Upjohn warnings ' ie, we represent the company, our conversation is privileged, but the company may 'waive' the privilege in its sole discretion ' is consistent with the reasonable expectations of employees and a lawyer's ethical duty to be honest and candid.
Confidential Client Communications? Maybe Not
June 28, 2006
Former SEC Chairman William H. Donaldson noted in a March 5, 2004 speech that SOX was needed to deal with 'a general erosion of standards of integrity and ethics in the corporate and financial world ... The acquiescence by the gatekeepers, like accountants, who turned their backs or actually condoned such accounting manipulation, combined with stock option incentives to management, fueled the short-term focus.' Ironically, the SEC and the Department of Justice, which enforce SOX's criminal provisions, appear ready to burden the traditional ethical obligations of corporate legal counselors to keep client communications confidential in an effort to police the integrity and ethics of other corporate gatekeepers.
