Library Search

FAQ   Summaries of Law   Dictionary

• Corporate Tax Litigation in Canada ( June 2005 )
  Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP

  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.

• Federal Circuit Abolishes Negative Inference from Willful Patent ( June 2005 )
  James M. Smith and Daniel B. Pollack of Squire, Sanders & Dempsey L.L.P.

  In a landmark decision, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit overruled a long-standing precedent relating to willful patent infringement. In Knorr-Bremse Systeme Fuer Nutzfahrzeuge GmBH v. Dana Corp., 383 F.3d 1337, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ("Knorr-Bremse"), the Federal Circuit abolished the negative inference that an opinion of counsel was or would have been unfavorable if an alleged infringer fails to produce or obtain an exculpatory opinion of counsel in response to a charge of willful patent infringement.

• Will Willful Infringement Now Wilt aWay? ( September 2004 )
  

  The "willful" infringement of a patent enables the plaintiff to collect treble damages, as well as attorneys' fees. On September 13, 2004, in <i>Knorr-Bremse Systems Fuer Nutzfahrzeuge GmbH v. Dana Corp</i>., the Federal Circuit overturned 18 years of precedent on how to establish willful infringement in patent cases. After reviewing about 24 <i>amicus curiae</i> briefs, the virtually unanimous <i>en banc</i> court held that when the attorney-client privilege and/or work-product privilege is invoked by a defendant in a patent infringement suit who had sought advice on infringement, it is inappropriate for the trier-of-fact to draw an adverse inference with respect to willful infringement when the opinion is withheld.

• The Legal Checkup - Preventative Medicine for Good Corporate Health ( September 2004 )
  Tillinghast Licht LLP

  Health-care providers generally encourage their patients to have regular checkups to spot potential problems before they develop into irreversible, or untreatable conditions. Periodic "legal checkups," or audits, which draw on preventive law techniques, can help corporations (such as hospitals, nursing homes, clinics, laboratories, physician groups, and therapists) anticipate, and guard against, potential legal problems, liabilities, and excessive costs.

• The Complex Insurance Coverage Action's Case Management Process: From Complaint Until Trial --The Policyholder's Perspective ( August 2004 )
  John E. James of Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP

  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 )
  Nixon Peabody LLP

  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 )
  David B. Bayless of Morrison & Foerster LLP

  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 )
  David A. Anderson and Michael J. Halloran of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP

  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 of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP

  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.

• Sarbanes-Oxley "Hotline" Procedures: Who Should Be Doing the Listening? ( May 2003 )
  Larry M. Spirgel and Gavin B. Grover of Morrison & Foerster LLP

  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.