FindLaw | Find a Lawyer. Find Answers.

Library Search

• Corporate Tax Litigation in Canada ( June 2005 )
  

  The most important event in Canadian tax litigation was the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on June 24, 2004, to hear two tax cases involving the general anti-avoidance rule ("GAAR"). The cases, Kaulius v. The Queen1 and The Queen v. Canada Trustco Mortgage Company,2 will be the first cases heard by the Supreme Court of Canada where GAAR is the central issue.

• The Complex Insurance Coverage Action's Case Management Process: From Complaint Until Trial --The Policyholder's Perspective ( August 2004 )
  

  Policyholders and their counsel often are under the impression that efficient litigation management is a one-sided affair. While the objective for them, as with virtually all plaintiffs, is to obtain recovery as soon as the administration of justice in a particular jurisdiction will permit, insurance companies and their counsel appear in many cases to seek the opposite.

• Court Finds Attorney-Client Privilege Waived by Failure toPreserve Evidence When IP Enforcement WasContemplated ( May 2004 )
  

  A recent decision in the long-running battle between Rambus and Infineon Technologies over the enforcement of Rambus's patents and Rambus's role in a standard-setting organization spells dire consequences for failure to preserve evidence when litigation to enforce intellectual property rights is contemplated. The decision also articulated a duty to preserve evidence in connection with anticipated intellectual property enforcement that has potentially sweeping breadth.

• The New World of SEC Enforcement ( November 2003 )
  

  The Sarbanes-Oxley Act has provided the Enforcement Division of the Securities and Exchange Commission with significant new enforcement tools, including new causes of action, new remedies, and new regulators.

• Corporate Audit Committee Responsibilities: Special Investigations ( December 2003 )
  

  When dealing with special investigations, a key area of concern for general counsel is whether to bring in outside law firms to assist the audit committee, or whether the investigation can be handled in-house. In most cases, the advice of outside counsel working directly for the audit committee, completely independent from any prior dealings with the company, is invaluable. Similarly, the advice of an independent forensic auditor with no prior involvement in the company's financials is crucial.

• Corporate Governance Seminar. Seminar Summary of Speaker Michael J. Halloran of Pillsbury Winthrop LLP. ( October 2003 )
  

  Michael J. Halloran, Senior Partner of the corporate securities group at Pillsbury Winthrop LLP, and former General Counsel and Executive Vice President of Bank of America, was the Chair for the Corporate Governance program. He served as the moderator for the program and posed many hypothetical scenarios to the panelists to facilitate further discussion.

• Is Selective Waiver of Privilege Viable? ( August 2003 )
  

  The legal landscape regarding the privileged protections afforded counsel’s work has shifted in the wake of Sarbanes-Oxley and the post-Enron crackdown on white collar malfeasance. But the U.S. Courts of Appeals are split on the question of what effect the decision to share privileged communications with the government will have on the ability to protect those documents in the future.

• Willfulness Opinions ( June 2003 )
  

  Willfulness opinions are legal opinions that a particular product does not infringe, or that a patent is invalid or unenforceable. The need for willfulness opinions arises from substantive patent law, which establishes treble damages for willful infringement and makes the existence of a legal opinion relevant in defending against a claim of willful infringement.

• Sarbanes-Oxley "Hotline" Procedures: Who Should Be Doing the Listening? ( May 2003 )
  

  Among the many obligations created by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, there has recently been increased attention to the requirement to implement a "hotline" for confidential and anonymous complaints to the audit committee from whistleblower employees. Although these procedures are not required until at least 2004, many companies are moving for early adoption to show good corporate governance.