<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <rss
version="2.0"
xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
> <channel><title>InhouseBlog.com &#187; Litigation</title> <atom:link href="http://www.inhouseblog.com/tag/litigation/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><link>http://www.inhouseblog.com</link> <description>In-House Counsel News and Jobs Since 2005</description> <lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 14:54:48 +0000</lastBuildDate> <language>en</language> <sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod> <sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency> <xhtml:meta xmlns:xhtml="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" name="robots" content="noindex" /> <item><title>Class Actions Top 2012 Workplace Litigation Concerns</title><link>http://www.inhouseblog.com/class_actions/</link> <comments>http://www.inhouseblog.com/class_actions/#comments</comments> <pubDate>Thu, 12 Jan 2012 12:55:32 +0000</pubDate> <dc:creator>Editors</dc:creator> <category><![CDATA[News]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Litigation]]></category> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://www.inhouseblog.com/?p=21984</guid> <description><![CDATA[<p>A plan to identify and address class action vulnerabilities deserves a place at the top of any general counsel's priorities list for 2012, according to a leading workplace litigation lawyer.</p><p><a
href="http://www.inhouseblog.com">InhouseBlog.com</a></p>]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p></p><p>A plan to identify and address vulnerabilities to class actions deserves a place at the top of any general counsel&#8217;s priorities list for 2012, according to a leading workplace litigation lawyer.</p><p>[via: <a
href="http://www.law.com/jsp/cc/PubArticleCC.jsp?id=1202538108283&amp;rss=cc" title="Class Actions Top 2012 Workplace Litigation Concerns">Class Actions Top 2012 Workplace Litigation Concerns</a> at CorpCounsel]</p><p>Like this post? <b><a
href="http://www.inhouseblog.com/subscribe">Subscribe to InhouseBlog's FREE weekly email newsletter.</a></b> Unsubscribe at any time.<span
id="pty_trigger"></span><p><a
href="http://www.inhouseblog.com">InhouseBlog.com</a></p>]]></content:encoded> <wfw:commentRss>http://www.inhouseblog.com/class_actions/feed/</wfw:commentRss> <slash:comments>0</slash:comments> </item> <item><title>New iPhone app for PACER</title><link>http://www.inhouseblog.com/iphone_app_for_pacer/</link> <comments>http://www.inhouseblog.com/iphone_app_for_pacer/#comments</comments> <pubDate>Wed, 21 Dec 2011 09:14:15 +0000</pubDate> <dc:creator>Editors</dc:creator> <category><![CDATA[News]]></category> <category><![CDATA[IT/Software/Internet]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Litigation]]></category> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://www.inhouseblog.com/?p=21038</guid> <description><![CDATA[<p>Just in time for the holidays, the latest technological wizardry to hit Apple’s App Store is likely going to be the top gift idea for every attorney on your shopping list, and the perfect complement to their mobile computing needs.</p><p><a
href="http://www.inhouseblog.com">InhouseBlog.com</a></p>]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p></p><p>Ho ho ho &#8211; an iPhone app for PACER:</p><blockquote><p>Just in time for the holidays, the latest technological wizardry to hit Apple’s App Store is likely going to be the top gift idea for every attorney on your shopping list, and the perfect complement to their mobile computing needs.</p></blockquote><p>[via: <a
href="http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/insidecounsel/~3/zb4kdoPbH60/new-iphone-app-for-pacer" title="New iPhone app for PACER">New iPhone app for PACER</a> at InsideCounsel]</p><p>Like this post? <b><a
href="http://www.inhouseblog.com/subscribe">Subscribe to InhouseBlog's FREE weekly email newsletter.</a></b> Unsubscribe at any time.<span
id="pty_trigger"></span><p><a
href="http://www.inhouseblog.com">InhouseBlog.com</a></p>]]></content:encoded> <wfw:commentRss>http://www.inhouseblog.com/iphone_app_for_pacer/feed/</wfw:commentRss> <slash:comments>0</slash:comments> </item> <item><title>10 of the strangest lawsuits making headlines</title><link>http://www.inhouseblog.com/strangest_lawsuits-2/</link> <comments>http://www.inhouseblog.com/strangest_lawsuits-2/#comments</comments> <pubDate>Fri, 16 Dec 2011 11:54:27 +0000</pubDate> <dc:creator>Editors</dc:creator> <category><![CDATA[News]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Litigation]]></category> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://www.inhouseblog.com/?p=20708</guid> <description><![CDATA[<p>The following lawsuits exemplify the lighter, and sometimes bizarre, side of the corporate legal world.</p><p><a
href="http://www.inhouseblog.com">InhouseBlog.com</a></p>]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p></p><p>The following lawsuits exemplify the lighter, and sometimes bizarre, side of the corporate legal world.</p><p>[via: <a
href="http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/insidecounsel/~3/G2fyxeVNNaM/10-of-the-strangest-lawsuits-making-headlines" title="10 of the strangest lawsuits making headlines">10 of the strangest lawsuits making headlines</a> at InsideCounsel]</p><p>Like this post? <b><a
href="http://www.inhouseblog.com/subscribe">Subscribe to InhouseBlog's FREE weekly email newsletter.</a></b> Unsubscribe at any time.<span
id="pty_trigger"></span><p><a
href="http://www.inhouseblog.com">InhouseBlog.com</a></p>]]></content:encoded> <wfw:commentRss>http://www.inhouseblog.com/strangest_lawsuits-2/feed/</wfw:commentRss> <slash:comments>0</slash:comments> </item> <item><title>5 strategies for collecting insurance dollars</title><link>http://www.inhouseblog.com/collecting_insurance/</link> <comments>http://www.inhouseblog.com/collecting_insurance/#comments</comments> <pubDate>Tue, 13 Dec 2011 10:45:43 +0000</pubDate> <dc:creator>Editors</dc:creator> <category><![CDATA[Guides]]></category> <category><![CDATA[News]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Insurance]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Litigation]]></category> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://www.inhouseblog.com/?p=20280</guid> <description><![CDATA[<p>2011 has been a year filled with global natural disasters, marked earlier by the Japan earthquake and more recently by the Thailand flood. These events are continuing to have financial consequences for companies around the globe with facilities, trading partners or clients in the impacted regions.</p><p><a
href="http://www.inhouseblog.com">InhouseBlog.com</a></p>]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p></p><p>Your company pays the premiums &#8211; but is it collecting insurance dollars when it counts the most?</p><blockquote><p>2011 has been a year filled with global natural disasters, marked earlier by the Japan earthquake and more recently by the Thailand flood. These events are continuing to have financial consequences for companies around the globe with facilities, trading partners or clients in the impacted regions.</p></blockquote><p>[via: <a
href="http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/insidecounsel/~3/oZPdeH2LGV0/litigation-5-strategies-for-collecting-maximum-ins" title="Litigation: 5 strategies for collecting maximum insurance dollars">Litigation: 5 strategies for collecting maximum insurance dollars</a> at InsideCounsel]</p><p>Like this post? <b><a
href="http://www.inhouseblog.com/subscribe">Subscribe to InhouseBlog's FREE weekly email newsletter.</a></b> Unsubscribe at any time.<span
id="pty_trigger"></span><p><a
href="http://www.inhouseblog.com">InhouseBlog.com</a></p>]]></content:encoded> <wfw:commentRss>http://www.inhouseblog.com/collecting_insurance/feed/</wfw:commentRss> <slash:comments>0</slash:comments> </item> <item><title>Hold everything! How to know if you need a litigation hold notice</title><link>http://www.inhouseblog.com/litigation_hold_notice/</link> <comments>http://www.inhouseblog.com/litigation_hold_notice/#comments</comments> <pubDate>Wed, 07 Dec 2011 14:35:53 +0000</pubDate> <dc:creator>Editors</dc:creator> <category><![CDATA[Guides]]></category> <category><![CDATA[News]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Litigation]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Risk Management & Compliance]]></category> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://www.inhouseblog.com/?p=20048</guid> <description><![CDATA[<p>Recently, courts have served monetary sanctions ranging from $25,000 to $1 million to companies that failed to prevent the destruction of electronic evidence.</p><p><a
href="http://www.inhouseblog.com">InhouseBlog.com</a></p>]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p></p><p>Want to know when you need need a litigation hold notice? Suffice it to say that the answer could be important:</p><blockquote><p>Recently, courts have served monetary sanctions ranging from $25,000 to $1 million to companies that failed to prevent the destruction of electronic evidence.</p></blockquote><p>[via: <a
href="http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/insidecounsel/~3/l_OuBfxsgwk/labor-hold-everything-how-to-know-if-you-need-a-li" title="Labor: Hold everything! How to know if you need a litigation hold notice">Labor: Hold everything! How to know if you need a litigation hold notice</a> at InsideCounsel]</p><p>Like this post? <b><a
href="http://www.inhouseblog.com/subscribe">Subscribe to InhouseBlog's FREE weekly email newsletter.</a></b> Unsubscribe at any time.<span
id="pty_trigger"></span><p><a
href="http://www.inhouseblog.com">InhouseBlog.com</a></p>]]></content:encoded> <wfw:commentRss>http://www.inhouseblog.com/litigation_hold_notice/feed/</wfw:commentRss> <slash:comments>0</slash:comments> </item> <item><title>Free and Reliable Downloads for the New Federal Rules of Evidence</title><link>http://www.inhouseblog.com/new_federal_rules_of_evidence/</link> <comments>http://www.inhouseblog.com/new_federal_rules_of_evidence/#comments</comments> <pubDate>Tue, 06 Dec 2011 16:07:42 +0000</pubDate> <dc:creator>Editors</dc:creator> <category><![CDATA[Guides]]></category> <category><![CDATA[News]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Litigation]]></category> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://www.inhouseblog.com/?p=20130</guid> <description><![CDATA[<p>The new Federal Rules of Evidence are here &#8211; and the Law Librarian Blog points to resources to get your copies, electronically and for free: The Restyled Federal Rules of Evidence, which became effective on December 1, 2011, are &#34;[s]impler. Easier to read. Easier to understand. These [characterizations] describe the Federal Rules of Evidence after [...]</p><p><a
href="http://www.inhouseblog.com">InhouseBlog.com</a></p>]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p></p><p>The new Federal Rules of Evidence are here &#8211; and the Law Librarian Blog points to resources to get your copies, electronically and for free:</p><blockquote><p>The Restyled Federal Rules of Evidence, which became effective on December 1, 2011, are &quot;[s]impler. Easier to read. Easier to understand. These [characterizations] describe the Federal Rules of Evidence after their first top-to-bottom restyling since they were drafted and enacted 36 years ago,&quot; according to the Third Branch. Ah, OK but &#8230; well, for once our commercial legal publishers have a &quot;justifiable&quot; reason for shipping very expensive new pamphlet editions of FRE, a government document, this year.</p><p>However, here&#8217;s two free and reliable e-text alternatives from Federal Evidence Review and Cornell LII-CALI&#8230;</p></blockquote><p>[via <a
href='http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/law_librarian_blog/2011/12/free-and-reliable-e-texts-for-the-new-federal-rules-of-evidence-as-well-as-civil-procedure-criminal-procedure.html'>Law Librarian Blog: Free and Reliable e-Text Downloads for the New Federal Rules of Evidence (as well as 2012 editions of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Criminal Procedure)</a>.]</p><p>Like this post? <b><a
href="http://www.inhouseblog.com/subscribe">Subscribe to InhouseBlog's FREE weekly email newsletter.</a></b> Unsubscribe at any time.<span
id="pty_trigger"></span><p><a
href="http://www.inhouseblog.com">InhouseBlog.com</a></p>]]></content:encoded> <wfw:commentRss>http://www.inhouseblog.com/new_federal_rules_of_evidence/feed/</wfw:commentRss> <slash:comments>0</slash:comments> </item> <item><title>The Delaware Court of Chancery Unveils Largest Judgment</title><link>http://www.inhouseblog.com/delaware_court_of_chancery/</link> <comments>http://www.inhouseblog.com/delaware_court_of_chancery/#comments</comments> <pubDate>Mon, 28 Nov 2011 10:30:02 +0000</pubDate> <dc:creator>Editors</dc:creator> <category><![CDATA[News]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Corporate/M&A]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Litigation]]></category> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://www.inhouseblog.com/?p=19468</guid> <description><![CDATA[<p>On Oct. 14, 2011, the Delaware Court of Chancery issued a 105-page post-trial opinion in In re Southern Peru Copper Corporation Shareholder Derivative Litigation, which involved a challenge to Southern Peru Copper Corp.’s purchase of Minera Mexico, S.A. de C.V. from Southern Peru’s controlling stockholder, Grupo Mexico, S.A.B. de C.V.,...</p><p><a
href="http://www.inhouseblog.com">InhouseBlog.com</a></p>]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p></p><p>On Oct. 14, 2011, the Delaware Court of Chancery issued a 105-page post-trial opinion in In re Southern Peru Copper Corporation Shareholder Derivative Litigation, which involved a challenge to Southern Peru Copper Corp.’s purchase of Minera Mexico, S.A. de C.V. from Southern Peru’s controlling stockholder, Grupo Mexico, S.A.B. de CV.  The opinion contains an award of 1.3 billion in damages &#8211; the largest in the court&#8217;s history.</p><p>[via: <a
href="http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/insidecounsel/~3/i3e19xjORVQ/litigation-the-delaware-court-of-chancerys-largest" title="Litigation: The Delaware Court of Chancery’s largest judgment">Litigation: The Delaware Court of Chancery’s largest judgment</a> at InsideCounsel]</p><p>Like this post? <b><a
href="http://www.inhouseblog.com/subscribe">Subscribe to InhouseBlog's FREE weekly email newsletter.</a></b> Unsubscribe at any time.<span
id="pty_trigger"></span><p><a
href="http://www.inhouseblog.com">InhouseBlog.com</a></p>]]></content:encoded> <wfw:commentRss>http://www.inhouseblog.com/delaware_court_of_chancery/feed/</wfw:commentRss> <slash:comments>0</slash:comments> </item> <item><title>Top In-House Counsel Fear Rise in Regulation Litigation</title><link>http://www.inhouseblog.com/regulation_litigation/</link> <comments>http://www.inhouseblog.com/regulation_litigation/#comments</comments> <pubDate>Mon, 14 Nov 2011 11:39:16 +0000</pubDate> <dc:creator>Editors</dc:creator> <category><![CDATA[News]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Litigation]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Risk Management & Compliance]]></category> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://www.inhouseblog.com/?p=18774</guid> <description><![CDATA[<p>If you fear regulation litigation, you are not alone. [via: TrendWatch: Top In-House Counsel Fear Reg-Led Litigation Rise at CorpCounsel] Like this post? Subscribe to InhouseBlog's FREE weekly email newsletter. Unsubscribe at any time.</p><p><a
href="http://www.inhouseblog.com">InhouseBlog.com</a></p>]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p></p><p>If you fear regulation litigation, you are not alone.</p><p>[via: <a
href="http://www.law.com/jsp/cc/PubArticleCC.jsp?id=1202532247792&amp;rss=cc" title="TrendWatch: Top In-House Counsel Fear Reg-Led Litigation Rise">TrendWatch: Top In-House Counsel Fear Reg-Led Litigation Rise</a> at CorpCounsel]</p><p>Like this post? <b><a
href="http://www.inhouseblog.com/subscribe">Subscribe to InhouseBlog's FREE weekly email newsletter.</a></b> Unsubscribe at any time.<span
id="pty_trigger"></span><p><a
href="http://www.inhouseblog.com">InhouseBlog.com</a></p>]]></content:encoded> <wfw:commentRss>http://www.inhouseblog.com/regulation_litigation/feed/</wfw:commentRss> <slash:comments>0</slash:comments> </item> <item><title>5 of the strangest lawsuits making headlines</title><link>http://www.inhouseblog.com/strangest_lawsuits/</link> <comments>http://www.inhouseblog.com/strangest_lawsuits/#comments</comments> <pubDate>Fri, 11 Nov 2011 14:58:58 +0000</pubDate> <dc:creator>Editors</dc:creator> <category><![CDATA[News]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Litigation]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Weird/Wacky/Funny]]></category> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://www.inhouseblog.com/?p=18609</guid> <description><![CDATA[<p>The following lawsuits exemplify the lighter, and sometimes bizarre, side of the corporate legal world.</p><p><a
href="http://www.inhouseblog.com">InhouseBlog.com</a></p>]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p></p><p>The following &#8220;strangest lawsuits&#8221; exemplify the lighter, and sometimes bizarre, side of the corporate legal world.</p><p>[via: <a
href="http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/insidecounsel/~3/CtV4hRHRaBE/5-of-the-strangest-lawsuits-making-headlines" title="5 of the strangest lawsuits making headlines">5 of the strangest lawsuits making headlines</a> at InsideCounsel]</p><p>Like this post? <b><a
href="http://www.inhouseblog.com/subscribe">Subscribe to InhouseBlog's FREE weekly email newsletter.</a></b> Unsubscribe at any time.<span
id="pty_trigger"></span><p><a
href="http://www.inhouseblog.com">InhouseBlog.com</a></p>]]></content:encoded> <wfw:commentRss>http://www.inhouseblog.com/strangest_lawsuits/feed/</wfw:commentRss> <slash:comments>0</slash:comments> </item> <item><title>Delaware Chancery Court Violated Law with ‘Secret’ Business Arbitration Program, Fed’l Suit Says</title><link>http://www.inhouseblog.com/delaware_chancery_court/</link> <comments>http://www.inhouseblog.com/delaware_chancery_court/#comments</comments> <pubDate>Wed, 26 Oct 2011 11:58:16 +0000</pubDate> <dc:creator>Editors</dc:creator> <category><![CDATA[News]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Litigation]]></category> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://www.inhouseblog.com/?p=17759</guid> <description><![CDATA[<p>A new corporate arbitration program hosted by what many consider the nation's top business court violates the U.S. Constitution by holding "secret" judicial proceedings, contends a lawsuit that was filed today in federal court in Wilmington, Del., by the Delaware Coalition for Open Government Inc. Naming all five justices of the state's chancery court as defendants, along with the state and chancery court, the suit contends the arbitration program is so similar to traditional courtroom litigation that it is unconstitutional not to have it take place on the record, according to Bloomberg and the Wilmington News Journal. "Although the statute…</p><p><a
href="http://www.inhouseblog.com">InhouseBlog.com</a></p>]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p></p><p>A new corporate arbitration program hosted by the Delaware Chancery Court violates the U.S. Constitution by holding &#8220;secret&#8221; judicial proceedings, contends a lawsuit that was filed today in federal court in Wilmington, Del., by the Delaware Coalition for Open Government Inc.</p><p>[via: <a
href="http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/abajournal/topstories/~3/rRs7gR0mYwQ/" title="Del. Chancery Court Violated Law with ‘Secret’ Business Arbitration Program, Fed’l Suit Says">Del. Chancery Court Violated Law with ‘Secret’ Business Arbitration Program, Fed’l Suit Says</a> at the ABA Journal]</p><p>Like this post? <b><a
href="http://www.inhouseblog.com/subscribe">Subscribe to InhouseBlog's FREE weekly email newsletter.</a></b> Unsubscribe at any time.<span
id="pty_trigger"></span><p><a
href="http://www.inhouseblog.com">InhouseBlog.com</a></p>]]></content:encoded> <wfw:commentRss>http://www.inhouseblog.com/delaware_chancery_court/feed/</wfw:commentRss> <slash:comments>0</slash:comments> </item> <item><title>The UK Bribery Act: The Corporate Criminal Plea Sails Overseas</title><link>http://www.inhouseblog.com/uk_bribery_act/</link> <comments>http://www.inhouseblog.com/uk_bribery_act/#comments</comments> <pubDate>Thu, 20 Oct 2011 14:40:10 +0000</pubDate> <dc:creator>Editors</dc:creator> <category><![CDATA[News]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Litigation]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Risk Management & Compliance]]></category> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://www.inhouseblog.com/?p=17074</guid> <description><![CDATA[<p> The U.K. Bribery Act arrived this summer in a hail of publicity. But that act won't move mountains without a subtle but seismic change in Britain's legal superstructure.</p><p><a
href="http://www.inhouseblog.com">InhouseBlog.com</a></p>]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p></p><p>The UK Bribery Act arrived this summer in a hail of publicity. But that act won&#8217;t move mountains without a subtle but seismic change in Britain&#8217;s legal superstructure.</p><p>[via: <a
href="http://amlawdaily.typepad.com/amlawdaily/2011/10/the-global-lawyer-the-corporate-criminal-plea-sails-overseas.html" title="The Global Lawyer: The Corporate Criminal Plea Sails Overseas">The Global Lawyer: The Corporate Criminal Plea Sails Overseas</a> at the American Lawyer]</p><p>Like this post? <b><a
href="http://www.inhouseblog.com/subscribe">Subscribe to InhouseBlog's FREE weekly email newsletter.</a></b> Unsubscribe at any time.<span
id="pty_trigger"></span><p><a
href="http://www.inhouseblog.com">InhouseBlog.com</a></p>]]></content:encoded> <wfw:commentRss>http://www.inhouseblog.com/uk_bribery_act/feed/</wfw:commentRss> <slash:comments>0</slash:comments> </item> <item><title>Litigation is down in 2011, study says</title><link>http://www.inhouseblog.com/litigation_is_down/</link> <comments>http://www.inhouseblog.com/litigation_is_down/#comments</comments> <pubDate>Wed, 19 Oct 2011 13:55:14 +0000</pubDate> <dc:creator>Editors</dc:creator> <category><![CDATA[News]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Litigation]]></category> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://www.inhouseblog.com/?p=17041</guid> <description><![CDATA[<p>Fulbright &#038; Jaworski recently released its fifth annual Litigation Trends Survey to some surprising results.</p><p><a
href="http://www.inhouseblog.com">InhouseBlog.com</a></p>]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p></p><p>Fulbright &#038; Jaworski recently released its fifth annual Litigation Trends Survey to some surprising results &#8211; including that litigation is down in 2011.</p><p>[via: <a
href="http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/insidecounsel/~3/Hzc4M-F7_04/litigation-down-in-2011-study-says" title="Litigation down in 2011, study says">Litigation down in 2011, study says</a> at InsideCounsel]</p><p>Like this post? <b><a
href="http://www.inhouseblog.com/subscribe">Subscribe to InhouseBlog's FREE weekly email newsletter.</a></b> Unsubscribe at any time.<span
id="pty_trigger"></span><p><a
href="http://www.inhouseblog.com">InhouseBlog.com</a></p>]]></content:encoded> <wfw:commentRss>http://www.inhouseblog.com/litigation_is_down/feed/</wfw:commentRss> <slash:comments>0</slash:comments> </item> <item><title>Delaware’s distinction as U.S. bankruptcy capital in jeopardy</title><link>http://www.inhouseblog.com/bankruptcy_capital/</link> <comments>http://www.inhouseblog.com/bankruptcy_capital/#comments</comments> <pubDate>Wed, 19 Oct 2011 12:51:41 +0000</pubDate> <dc:creator>Editors</dc:creator> <category><![CDATA[News]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Litigation]]></category> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://www.inhouseblog.com/?p=17040</guid> <description><![CDATA[<p>Wayne Campbell’s sardonic excitement just waned even more. Delaware’s possible greatest claim to fame could be going the way of the dodo if leaders of the House Judiciary Committee have their way.</p><p><a
href="http://www.inhouseblog.com">InhouseBlog.com</a></p>]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p></p><p>Delaware’s possible greatest claim to fame, as the bankruptcy capital of the US, could be going the way of the dodo if leaders of the House Judiciary Committee have their way.</p><p>[via: <a
href="http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/insidecounsel/~3/iozfO-aWG48/delawares-distinction-as-us-bankruptcy-capital-in" title="Delaware’s distinction as U.S. bankruptcy capital in jeopardy">Delaware’s distinction as U.S. bankruptcy capital in jeopardy</a> at InsideCounsel]</p><p>Like this post? <b><a
href="http://www.inhouseblog.com/subscribe">Subscribe to InhouseBlog's FREE weekly email newsletter.</a></b> Unsubscribe at any time.<span
id="pty_trigger"></span><p><a
href="http://www.inhouseblog.com">InhouseBlog.com</a></p>]]></content:encoded> <wfw:commentRss>http://www.inhouseblog.com/bankruptcy_capital/feed/</wfw:commentRss> <slash:comments>0</slash:comments> </item> <item><title>Deepwater Liability and the Contractors at Risk</title><link>http://www.inhouseblog.com/deepwater_liability/</link> <comments>http://www.inhouseblog.com/deepwater_liability/#comments</comments> <pubDate>Thu, 13 Oct 2011 09:23:43 +0000</pubDate> <dc:creator>Editors</dc:creator> <category><![CDATA[News]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Litigation]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Risk Management & Compliance]]></category> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://www.inhouseblog.com/?p=16450</guid> <description><![CDATA[<p> Can contractors for BP be held liable for the Deepwater Horizon oil spill? That’s the latest question in the legal fallout from last year’s gargantuan spill in the Gulf. Tennille Tracy has this story on WSJ.com today saying the prospect of liability for contractors has the industry in a tizzy. U.S. regulators are set to hand out punishments in the Deepwater Horizon case as soon as this week, following a months-long investigation by the Interior Department and Coast Guard. Interior’s offshore safety chief, Michael Bromwich, has suggested in recent weeks that BP contractors Transocean Ltd. and Halliburton Co. are likely to be targeted. That has triggered a lobbying campaign by contractors and some lawmakers who say fining the contractors, typically hired by big oil companies to perform specific tasks at a drilling project, lacks precedent and may be illegal. By pursuing Transocean and Halliburton, regulators “give a green light for others to go after them—on the same basis and on the same level” as primary operators, said Brian Petty, executive vice president of government affairs at the International Association of Drilling Contractors. Mr. Bromwich says contractors should be held accountable. The process of assigning blame for the Deepwater Horizon spill is already a high-stakes game involving billions of dollars. In April, BP sued Halliburton, Transocean and Cameron International Corp., the company that made a safety device known as a blowout preventer. BP, which has set aside more than $40 billion for spill-related costs, said the other companies contributed to the disaster. Mr. Petty of the drilling contractors’ group said decades of precedent support the idea that only operators should be targeted for rule violations. Contractors say they don’t make enough money to shoulder the risks of oil spills or other major events. In other branches of the law, third-parties haven’t escaped liability. In Foreign Corrupt Practices Act cases, for example, DOJ officials have indicated companies can be held responsible for bribes paid by their agents and vendors. Tracy’s story says spokesmen for Transocean and BP declined to comment.</p><p><a
href="http://www.inhouseblog.com">InhouseBlog.com</a></p>]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p></p><p>Deepwater liability? That is the question many contractors are asking themselves after last year&#8217;s Gulf oil spill.</p><p>[via: <a
href="http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2011/10/12/contractors-in-a-tizzy-over-possible-liability/?mod=WSJBlog" title="Contractors in a Tizzy Over Possible Liability">Contractors in a Tizzy Over Possible Liability</a> at the WSJ Law Blog]</p><p>Like this post? <b><a
href="http://www.inhouseblog.com/subscribe">Subscribe to InhouseBlog's FREE weekly email newsletter.</a></b> Unsubscribe at any time.<span
id="pty_trigger"></span><p><a
href="http://www.inhouseblog.com">InhouseBlog.com</a></p>]]></content:encoded> <wfw:commentRss>http://www.inhouseblog.com/deepwater_liability/feed/</wfw:commentRss> <slash:comments>0</slash:comments> </item> <item><title>Mexico Class Action Law Opens a Litigation Frontier</title><link>http://www.inhouseblog.com/mexico_class_action_law/</link> <comments>http://www.inhouseblog.com/mexico_class_action_law/#comments</comments> <pubDate>Tue, 11 Oct 2011 13:36:08 +0000</pubDate> <dc:creator>Law.com</dc:creator> <category><![CDATA[News]]></category> <category><![CDATA[International]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Litigation]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Risk Management & Compliance]]></category> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://www.inhouseblog.com/?p=15383</guid> <description><![CDATA[<p>The first class action law in Mexico's history goes into effect March 1, 2012, which has legal professionals on both sides of the border preparing for how the law will play out among potential litigants.</p><p><a
href="http://www.inhouseblog.com">InhouseBlog.com</a></p>]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p></p><p>The first class action law in Mexico&#8217;s history goes into effect March 1, 2012, which has legal professionals on both sides of the border preparing for how the law will play out among potential litigants.</p><p>[via: <a
href="http://www.law.com/jsp/cc/PubArticleCC.jsp?id=1202518442900&amp;rss=cc" title="Mexico's New Class Action Law Opens a Litigation Frontier">Mexico's New Class Action Law Opens a Litigation Frontier</a> at CorpCounsel]</p><p>Like this post? <b><a
href="http://www.inhouseblog.com/subscribe">Subscribe to InhouseBlog's FREE weekly email newsletter.</a></b> Unsubscribe at any time.<span
id="pty_trigger"></span><p><a
href="http://www.inhouseblog.com">InhouseBlog.com</a></p>]]></content:encoded> <wfw:commentRss>http://www.inhouseblog.com/mexico_class_action_law/feed/</wfw:commentRss> <slash:comments>0</slash:comments> </item> <item><title>Law School Lawsuits Expanding, Lawyers Announce Plans to Sue 15 More Law Schools over Job Stats</title><link>http://www.inhouseblog.com/law_school_lawsuits/</link> <comments>http://www.inhouseblog.com/law_school_lawsuits/#comments</comments> <pubDate>Mon, 10 Oct 2011 15:37:08 +0000</pubDate> <dc:creator>Editors</dc:creator> <category><![CDATA[News]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Law Schools]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Litigation]]></category> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://www.inhouseblog.com/?p=14827</guid> <description><![CDATA[<p>Updated: The litigation against law schools over employment statistics may be expanding. Two law firms announced today that they plan to sue 15 more law schools in seven different states, according to Law School Transparency, which posted the press release. The suits will challenge the schools’ reported employment rates for law graduates, the release says. Prior suits against Cooley Law School, New York Law School and Thomas Jefferson School of Law in California have claimed law students had been misled by job statistics that didn't specify whether jobs obtained by grads were in the legal field. In a conference call…</p><p><a
href="http://www.inhouseblog.com">InhouseBlog.com</a></p>]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p></p><p>Law school lawsuits over employment statistics may be expanding. Two law firms announced today that they plan to sue 15 more law schools in seven different states.</p><p>[via: <a
href="http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/abajournal/topstories/~3/EmmIlCpMvLc/" title="Law Firms Announce Plans to Sue 15 More Law Schools over Job Stats">Law Firms Announce Plans to Sue 15 More Law Schools over Job Stats</a> at the ABA Journal]</p><p>Like this post? <b><a
href="http://www.inhouseblog.com/subscribe">Subscribe to InhouseBlog's FREE weekly email newsletter.</a></b> Unsubscribe at any time.<span
id="pty_trigger"></span><p><a
href="http://www.inhouseblog.com">InhouseBlog.com</a></p>]]></content:encoded> <wfw:commentRss>http://www.inhouseblog.com/law_school_lawsuits/feed/</wfw:commentRss> <slash:comments>0</slash:comments> </item> <item><title>Setting Reserves with Confidence</title><link>http://www.inhouseblog.com/setting-reserves/</link> <comments>http://www.inhouseblog.com/setting-reserves/#comments</comments> <pubDate>Wed, 05 Oct 2011 10:22:15 +0000</pubDate> <dc:creator>Guest Contributor</dc:creator> <category><![CDATA[Guides]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Law Department Management]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Litigation]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Risk Management & Compliance]]></category> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://www.inhouseblog.com/?p=14609</guid> <description><![CDATA[<p>by Peter N. Farley, Guest Contributor When companies set reserves, they may seek recommendations from in-house counsel and may rely heavily on those recommendations. The challenge for many in-house counsel is getting comfortable with the estimates (determined by the accounting department) that will be the basis for the amounts recorded on the financial statements, a [...]</p><p><a
href="http://www.inhouseblog.com">InhouseBlog.com</a></p>]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p></p><p>by <a
href="http://www.sutherland.com/lawyers/Detail.aspx?Attorney=2130&#038;service=46" title="Peter N. Farley of Sutherland" target="_blank">Peter N. Farley</a>, Guest Contributor</p><p>When companies set reserves, they may seek recommendations from in-house counsel and may rely heavily on those recommendations. The challenge for many in-house counsel is getting comfortable with the estimates (determined by the accounting department) that will be the basis for the amounts recorded on the financial statements, a process that can pose unique challenges.  To learn more about setting reserves, <a
href="http://www.sutherland.com/files/Publication/031e270a-e58f-4bda-a3ec-6b75b81dfafd/Presentation/PublicationAttachment/41a0b07f-2704-47ce-9487-6d6b284b5ad5/Setting-Reserves-With-Confidence.pdf" title="Setting Reserves with Confidence" target="_blank">read this article (PDF)</a> by <a
href="http://www.sutherland.com/lawyers/Detail.aspx?Attorney=2130&#038;service=46" title="Peter N. Farley of Sutherland" target="_blank">Peter N. Farley</a>, a member of <a
href="http://www.sutherland.com/" title="Sutherland Law Firm" target="_blank">Sutherland’s</a> Litigation Practice Group. Previously, Peter served as General Counsel for Beaulieu Group, LLC where he managed litigation, complex federal tax and product defect matters as well as the ethics, compliance and internal audit functions. Peter continues to serve as Beaulieu&#8217;s outside general counsel as a partner with Sutherland.</p><p>Like this post? <b><a
href="http://www.inhouseblog.com/subscribe">Subscribe to InhouseBlog's FREE weekly email newsletter.</a></b> Unsubscribe at any time.<span
id="pty_trigger"></span><p><a
href="http://www.inhouseblog.com">InhouseBlog.com</a></p>]]></content:encoded> <wfw:commentRss>http://www.inhouseblog.com/setting-reserves/feed/</wfw:commentRss> <slash:comments>0</slash:comments> </item> <item><title>Supreme Court Gets Down to Business</title><link>http://www.inhouseblog.com/supreme_court/</link> <comments>http://www.inhouseblog.com/supreme_court/#comments</comments> <pubDate>Tue, 04 Oct 2011 12:46:53 +0000</pubDate> <dc:creator>Editors</dc:creator> <category><![CDATA[News]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Litigation]]></category> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://www.inhouseblog.com/?p=14435</guid> <description><![CDATA[<p> So far, we have only scratched the surface ( here and here ) of what’s in store for the Supreme Court term that begins today. The 2011-12 term promises to cover some huge issues (not even counting health-care), including police surveillance, immigration, and affirmative action. Here are the cases that the pundits are talking about: U.S. v. Jones: As this WSJ preview notes, one prominent case, U.S. v Jones, will look at the extent to which police can secretly use tracking devices without first getting a search warrant. Police say they are entitled to attach a GPS tracking device to anyone’s car for any reason and will ask the justices to reverse an appeals-court ruling that held otherwise, according to WSJ. ( Here’s a SCOTUSblog overview of the case.) Arizona v. U.S.: The case involves one of the major legal debates of recent years: the extent to which states have the power to combat illegal immigration. The Arizona law at issue allows state police to question and arrest illegal immigrants, but lower courts have blocked the law, concluding that it usurps the federal government’s authority over immigration matters. A ruling upholding the Arizona immigration law could encourage more states and cities to adopt measures that crack down on illegal residents, the Los Angeles Times notes . Fisher v. Texas: In this case involving the University of Texas and a companion case involving the University of Michigan, the high court will consider whether admissions policies that purportedly favor racial minorities are unconstitutional. According to this CNN preview, the admissions policies at issue arose in the wake of a 2003 Supreme Court ruling that allowed the University of Michigan Law School to consider race as a plus factor in making admissions decisions. But the high court, CNN reports, will weigh whether racial and gender preferences continue to be necessary to achieve a diverse student body. As if that weren’t enough excitement, there are several high-profile disputes that could make it to the Supreme Court this term, including cases involving same-sex marriage rights, WSJ reports. A federal district court in Boston struck down provisions of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which bars the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages, while San Francisco federal judge Vaughn Walker struck down the state’s Proposition 8 ban on same-sex marriages. Both are awaiting appeals-court rulings, after which the parties are likely to ask the Supreme Court to weigh in, according to WSJ.</p><p><a
href="http://www.inhouseblog.com">InhouseBlog.com</a></p>]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p></p><p>Get the scoop on what cases the Supreme Court will be hearing in the new term at the WSJLawBlog:</p><blockquote><p> So far, we have only scratched the surface of what’s in store for the Supreme Court term that begins today. The 2011-12 term promises to cover some huge issues (not even counting health-care), including police surveillance, immigration, and affirmative action.</p></blockquote><p>[via: <a
href="http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2011/10/03/supreme-court-gets-down-to-business/?mod=WSJBlog" title="Supreme Court Gets Down to Business">Supreme Court Gets Down to Business</a> at the WSJ Law Blog]</p><p>Like this post? <b><a
href="http://www.inhouseblog.com/subscribe">Subscribe to InhouseBlog's FREE weekly email newsletter.</a></b> Unsubscribe at any time.<span
id="pty_trigger"></span><p><a
href="http://www.inhouseblog.com">InhouseBlog.com</a></p>]]></content:encoded> <wfw:commentRss>http://www.inhouseblog.com/supreme_court/feed/</wfw:commentRss> <slash:comments>0</slash:comments> </item> <item><title>Current Trends in Securities Litigation from WestlawInsider</title><link>http://www.inhouseblog.com/securities_litigation/</link> <comments>http://www.inhouseblog.com/securities_litigation/#comments</comments> <pubDate>Thu, 29 Sep 2011 15:35:59 +0000</pubDate> <dc:creator>Editors</dc:creator> <category><![CDATA[Guides]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Litigation]]></category> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://www.inhouseblog.com/?p=13779</guid> <description><![CDATA[<p>Courtesy of WestlawInsider, understand the current trends in securities litigation by understanding this area of law and its developments over the last forty years. Read about key decisions relating to securities law litigation and gain a deeper knowledge of the primary legislative authority in this area of law. Free registration required. [via Current Trends in [...]</p><p><a
href="http://www.inhouseblog.com">InhouseBlog.com</a></p>]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p></p><p>Courtesy of WestlawInsider, understand the current trends in securities litigation by understanding this area of law and its developments over the last forty years. Read about key decisions relating to securities law litigation and gain a deeper knowledge of the primary legislative authority in this area of law.  Free registration required.</p><p>[via <a
href="http://westlawinsider.com/corporate-counsel/current-trends-in-securities-litigation-how-companies-and-counsel-should-respond/" title="Current Trends in Securities Litigation" target="_blank">Current Trends in Securities Litigation at WestlawInsider</a>]</p><p>Like this post? <b><a
href="http://www.inhouseblog.com/subscribe">Subscribe to InhouseBlog's FREE weekly email newsletter.</a></b> Unsubscribe at any time.<span
id="pty_trigger"></span><p><a
href="http://www.inhouseblog.com">InhouseBlog.com</a></p>]]></content:encoded> <wfw:commentRss>http://www.inhouseblog.com/securities_litigation/feed/</wfw:commentRss> <slash:comments>0</slash:comments> </item> <item><title>Litigation Hold Memos &#8211; Rules of the Road for In-House Counsel</title><link>http://www.inhouseblog.com/litigation_hold_memos/</link> <comments>http://www.inhouseblog.com/litigation_hold_memos/#comments</comments> <pubDate>Mon, 19 Sep 2011 06:56:40 +0000</pubDate> <dc:creator>Editors</dc:creator> <category><![CDATA[Guides]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Litigation]]></category> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://www.inhouseblog.com/?p=11400</guid> <description><![CDATA[<p>In-house counsel frequently encounter litigation hold memos, but many operate without set guidelines on how to handle them. Understanding the scope of a hold memo and assigning responsibility for compliance is key to protecting the business' information and its case.</p><p><a
href="http://www.inhouseblog.com">InhouseBlog.com</a></p>]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p></p><p>In-house counsel frequently encounter litigation hold memos, but many operate without set guidelines on how to handle them. Understanding the scope of a hold memo and assigning responsibility for compliance is key to protecting the business&#8217; information and its case.</p><p>[via: <a
href="http://www.law.com/jsp/cc/PubArticleCC.jsp?id=1202514523704&amp;rss=cc" title="In-House Rules of the Road for Litigation Hold Memos">In-House Rules of the Road for Litigation Hold Memos</a> at CorpCounsel]</p><p>Like this post? <b><a
href="http://www.inhouseblog.com/subscribe">Subscribe to InhouseBlog's FREE weekly email newsletter.</a></b> Unsubscribe at any time.<span
id="pty_trigger"></span><p><a
href="http://www.inhouseblog.com">InhouseBlog.com</a></p>]]></content:encoded> <wfw:commentRss>http://www.inhouseblog.com/litigation_hold_memos/feed/</wfw:commentRss> <slash:comments>0</slash:comments> </item> <item><title>If Secret Email Surfaces, ABA Opinion Says Opponent Alert Isn’t a Must—But Local Rules May Differ</title><link>http://www.inhouseblog.com/opponent_alert_to_secret_email/</link> <comments>http://www.inhouseblog.com/opponent_alert_to_secret_email/#comments</comments> <pubDate>Tue, 13 Sep 2011 08:17:54 +0000</pubDate> <dc:creator>Editors</dc:creator> <category><![CDATA[News]]></category> <category><![CDATA[American Bar Association]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Discovery]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Employment Law]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Litigation]]></category> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://www.inhouseblog.com/?p=8987</guid> <description><![CDATA[<p>If you represent an employer who turns out to have copies of an employee's email to counsel on a workplace computer or smartphone, the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct probably don't require disclosure to the opposing side in litigation. However, rules of civil procedure or case law in that jurisdiction may impose such a requirement—which, if violated, then also violates the ABA attorney ethics rules, too, explained the ABA Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility in an ethics opinion (PDF) announced in a press release today. The Model Rules are used by many states as a basis for…</p><p><a
href="http://www.inhouseblog.com">InhouseBlog.com</a></p>]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p></p><p>If you represent an employer who turns out to have copies of an employee&#8217;s email to counsel on a workplace computer or smartphone, is an opponent alert required? Perhaps not under an ABA opinion, but local rules may vary.</p><p>[via: <a
href="http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/abajournal/dailynews/~3/elhvkB3fSvg/" title="If Secret Email Surfaces, ABA Opinion Says Opponent Alert Isn’t a Must—But Local Rules May Differ">If Secret Email Surfaces, ABA Opinion Says Opponent Alert Isn’t a Must—But Local Rules May Differ</a> at the ABA Journal]</p><p>Like this post? <b><a
href="http://www.inhouseblog.com/subscribe">Subscribe to InhouseBlog's FREE weekly email newsletter.</a></b> Unsubscribe at any time.<span
id="pty_trigger"></span><p><a
href="http://www.inhouseblog.com">InhouseBlog.com</a></p>]]></content:encoded> <wfw:commentRss>http://www.inhouseblog.com/opponent_alert_to_secret_email/feed/</wfw:commentRss> <slash:comments>0</slash:comments> </item> <item><title>New Shopping Center Stores Must Allow All Customers to Enter Through Front Doors, Judge Rules</title><link>http://www.inhouseblog.com/shopping-center-stores-customers-enter-front-doors-judge-rules/</link> <comments>http://www.inhouseblog.com/shopping-center-stores-customers-enter-front-doors-judge-rules/#comments</comments> <pubDate>Fri, 02 Sep 2011 12:17:43 +0000</pubDate> <dc:creator>Editors</dc:creator> <category><![CDATA[News]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Litigation]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Risk Management & Compliance]]></category> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://www.inhouseblog.com/?p=8255</guid> <description><![CDATA[<p>Rejecting a shopping mall store's arguments that a porch-like front doorway with two steps was in compliance with disability laws because handicapped-accessible doors were right at hand, too, a federal judge in Colorado today held that Hollister Co. had violated the Americans with Disabilities Act. Chief U.S. District Judge Wiley Daniel said the company, which is a brand of Abercrombie &#038; Fitch Co., unnecessarily excluded individuals with handicaps from the full enjoyment of the aesthetic of shopping at their facilities, according to the Denver Post.</p><p><a
href="http://www.inhouseblog.com">InhouseBlog.com</a></p>]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p></p><p>Rejecting a shopping mall store&#8217;s arguments that a porch-like front doorway with two steps was in compliance with disability laws because handicapped-accessible doors were right at hand, too, a federal judge in Colorado today held that Hollister Co. had violated the Americans with Disabilities Act.</p><p>[via: <a
href="http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/abajournal/topstories/~3/kHxG_NANmZA/" title="New Shopping Center Stores Must Allow All Customers to Enter Through Front Doors, Judge Rules">New Shopping Center Stores Must Allow All Customers to Enter Through Front Doors, Judge Rules</a> at the ABA Journal]</p><p>Like this post? <b><a
href="http://www.inhouseblog.com/subscribe">Subscribe to InhouseBlog's FREE weekly email newsletter.</a></b> Unsubscribe at any time.<span
id="pty_trigger"></span><p><a
href="http://www.inhouseblog.com">InhouseBlog.com</a></p>]]></content:encoded> <wfw:commentRss>http://www.inhouseblog.com/shopping-center-stores-customers-enter-front-doors-judge-rules/feed/</wfw:commentRss> <slash:comments>0</slash:comments> </item> <item><title>Litigation: What will courts say about “say-on-pay”?</title><link>http://www.inhouseblog.com/litigation-courts-sayonpay/</link> <comments>http://www.inhouseblog.com/litigation-courts-sayonpay/#comments</comments> <pubDate>Sun, 28 Aug 2011 10:19:19 +0000</pubDate> <dc:creator>Editors</dc:creator> <category><![CDATA[News]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Litigation]]></category> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://www.inhouseblog.com/?p=7422</guid> <description><![CDATA[<p>Early court decisions concerning say-on-pay votes will be important as shareholders file more derivative suits.</p><p><a
href="http://www.inhouseblog.com">InhouseBlog.com</a></p>]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p></p><p>Early court decisions concerning say-on-pay votes will be important as shareholders file more derivative suits.</p><p>[via: <a
href="http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/insidecounsel/~3/jI-Qz8rETPk/litigation-what-will-courts-say-about-say-on-pay" title="Litigation: What will courts say about “say-on-pay”?">Litigation: What will courts say about “say-on-pay”?</a> at InsideCounsel]</p><p>Like this post? <b><a
href="http://www.inhouseblog.com/subscribe">Subscribe to InhouseBlog's FREE weekly email newsletter.</a></b> Unsubscribe at any time.<span
id="pty_trigger"></span><p><a
href="http://www.inhouseblog.com">InhouseBlog.com</a></p>]]></content:encoded> <wfw:commentRss>http://www.inhouseblog.com/litigation-courts-sayonpay/feed/</wfw:commentRss> <slash:comments>0</slash:comments> </item> <item><title>Monkey Business Leads to Breach of Contract Claim</title><link>http://www.inhouseblog.com/monkey-business-leads-breach-contract-claim/</link> <comments>http://www.inhouseblog.com/monkey-business-leads-breach-contract-claim/#comments</comments> <pubDate>Fri, 26 Aug 2011 08:38:13 +0000</pubDate> <dc:creator>Editors</dc:creator> <category><![CDATA[News]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Litigation]]></category> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://www.inhouseblog.com/?p=7400</guid> <description><![CDATA[<p>The New York Post reports that the Jane Goodall Institute for Wildlife Research, Education and Conservation is suing Sprout Foods in a $720,000 breach of contract claim. [via ContractsProf Blog: Monkey Business Leads to Breach of Contract Claim.] Like this post? Subscribe to InhouseBlog's FREE weekly email newsletter. Unsubscribe at any time.</p><p><a
href="http://www.inhouseblog.com">InhouseBlog.com</a></p>]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p></p><p>The New York Post reports that the Jane Goodall Institute for Wildlife Research, Education and Conservation is suing Sprout Foods in a $720,000 breach of contract claim.</p><p>[via <a
href='http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/contractsprof_blog/2011/08/monkey-business-leads-to-breach-of-contract-claim.html'>ContractsProf Blog: Monkey Business Leads to Breach of Contract Claim</a>.]</p><p>Like this post? <b><a
href="http://www.inhouseblog.com/subscribe">Subscribe to InhouseBlog's FREE weekly email newsletter.</a></b> Unsubscribe at any time.<span
id="pty_trigger"></span><p><a
href="http://www.inhouseblog.com">InhouseBlog.com</a></p>]]></content:encoded> <wfw:commentRss>http://www.inhouseblog.com/monkey-business-leads-breach-contract-claim/feed/</wfw:commentRss> <slash:comments>0</slash:comments> </item> <item><title>Litigation: Chasing away aiding and abetting liability</title><link>http://www.inhouseblog.com/litigation-chasing-aiding-abetting-liability/</link> <comments>http://www.inhouseblog.com/litigation-chasing-aiding-abetting-liability/#comments</comments> <pubDate>Tue, 16 Aug 2011 14:45:10 +0000</pubDate> <dc:creator>Editors</dc:creator> <category><![CDATA[News]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Litigation]]></category> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://www.inhouseblog.com/?p=5447</guid> <description><![CDATA[<p>A recent 2nd Circuit decision resolves a split in the district courts regarding the scope of the RICO Amendment.</p><p><a
href="http://www.inhouseblog.com">InhouseBlog.com</a></p>]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p></p><p>A recent 2nd Circuit decision resolves a split in the district courts regarding the scope of the RICO Amendment.</p><p>[via: <a
href="http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/insidecounsel/~3/BYBhT_QpYaE/litigation-chasing-away-aiding-and-abetting-liabil" title="Litigation: Chasing away aiding and abetting liability">Litigation: Chasing away aiding and abetting liability</a> at InsideCounsel]</p><p>Like this post? <b><a
href="http://www.inhouseblog.com/subscribe">Subscribe to InhouseBlog's FREE weekly email newsletter.</a></b> Unsubscribe at any time.<span
id="pty_trigger"></span><p><a
href="http://www.inhouseblog.com">InhouseBlog.com</a></p>]]></content:encoded> <wfw:commentRss>http://www.inhouseblog.com/litigation-chasing-aiding-abetting-liability/feed/</wfw:commentRss> <slash:comments>0</slash:comments> </item> <item><title>Lawyer&#8217;s &#8216;Poor&#8217; Stapling Provokes Motion&#8217;s Dismissal</title><link>http://www.inhouseblog.com/lawyers-poor-stapling-provokes-motions-dismissal/</link> <comments>http://www.inhouseblog.com/lawyers-poor-stapling-provokes-motions-dismissal/#comments</comments> <pubDate>Sat, 26 Sep 2009 16:28:26 +0000</pubDate> <dc:creator>Law.com</dc:creator> <category><![CDATA[News]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Litigation]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Weird/Wacky/Funny]]></category> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://www.inhouseblog.com/?p=1198</guid> <description><![CDATA[<p>In a case of first impression &#8212; no pun intended &#8212; a New York judge has thrown out a tort action because, in part, the plaintiffs attorneys stapled the complaint in what he said was a dangerously negligent manner. &#8220;[T]he poor stapling of the papers was so negligent as to inflict, and did inflict repeatedly, [...]</p><p><a
href="http://www.inhouseblog.com">InhouseBlog.com</a></p>]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p></p><p>In a case of first impression &#8212; no pun intended &#8212; a New York judge has thrown out a tort action because, in part, the plaintiffs attorneys stapled the complaint in what he said was a dangerously negligent manner. &#8220;[T]he poor stapling of the papers was so negligent as to inflict, and did inflict repeatedly, physical injury to the court personnel handling them,&#8221; the judge wrote.</p><p>[via <a
href="http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202434065266&#038;rss=newswire">Law.com - Lawyer's 'Poor' Stapling Provokes Motion's Dismissal</a> at Law.com.]</p><p>Like this post? <b><a
href="http://www.inhouseblog.com/subscribe">Subscribe to InhouseBlog's FREE weekly email newsletter.</a></b> Unsubscribe at any time.<span
id="pty_trigger"></span><p><a
href="http://www.inhouseblog.com">InhouseBlog.com</a></p>]]></content:encoded> <wfw:commentRss>http://www.inhouseblog.com/lawyers-poor-stapling-provokes-motions-dismissal/feed/</wfw:commentRss> <slash:comments>0</slash:comments> </item> <item><title>Outpacing PACER now a Reality?</title><link>http://www.inhouseblog.com/outpacing-pacer-reality/</link> <comments>http://www.inhouseblog.com/outpacing-pacer-reality/#comments</comments> <pubDate>Mon, 31 Aug 2009 11:29:27 +0000</pubDate> <dc:creator>Editors</dc:creator> <category><![CDATA[News]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Litigation]]></category> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://www.inhouseblog.com/?p=1161</guid> <description><![CDATA[<p>Maligned for years for its access fees and clunky system, the PACER system may be in for a bit of a shake-up, courtesy of a new third-party extension for the popular Firefox web browser: A team led by CITP director Ed Felten has devised a novel means of boosting the availability of PACER documents outside [...]</p><p><a
href="http://www.inhouseblog.com">InhouseBlog.com</a></p>]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p></p><p>Maligned for years for its access fees and clunky system, the PACER system may be in for a bit of a shake-up, courtesy of a new third-party extension for the popular Firefox web browser:</p><blockquote><p>A team led by CITP director Ed Felten has devised a novel means of boosting the availability of PACER documents outside of the paywall. They have created a new Firefox extension called RECAP that seamlessly replicates PACER content and uploads it to a mirror hosted by the Internet Archive. When RECAP users browse the PACER site, the content that they pay to view will be uploaded to the mirror by the Firefox extension. Users will get free access to the documents that are already hosted by the mirror.</p></blockquote><p>[via <a
href="http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/08/recap-firefox-extension-builds-crowdsourced-pacer-mirror.ars">Firefox extension liberates US court docs from paywall - Ars Technica</a>.]</p><p>Like this post? <b><a
href="http://www.inhouseblog.com/subscribe">Subscribe to InhouseBlog's FREE weekly email newsletter.</a></b> Unsubscribe at any time.<span
id="pty_trigger"></span><p><a
href="http://www.inhouseblog.com">InhouseBlog.com</a></p>]]></content:encoded> <wfw:commentRss>http://www.inhouseblog.com/outpacing-pacer-reality/feed/</wfw:commentRss> <slash:comments>1</slash:comments> </item> <item><title>eDiscovery Plain and Simple (New Book)</title><link>http://www.inhouseblog.com/ediscovery-plain-simple-guide/</link> <comments>http://www.inhouseblog.com/ediscovery-plain-simple-guide/#comments</comments> <pubDate>Tue, 28 Jul 2009 06:11:56 +0000</pubDate> <dc:creator>Editors</dc:creator> <category><![CDATA[Guides]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Discovery]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Litigation]]></category> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://www.inhouseblog.com/?p=1093</guid> <description><![CDATA[<p>Looking to get up to speed quickly on e-discovery issues? You may want to check out the following recently released book: E-Discovery Plain and Simple discusses Information Technology through the different viewpoints of two national experts in this field. Allison Brecher was one of the first corporate attorneys in the United States to manage electronic [...]</p><p><a
href="http://www.inhouseblog.com">InhouseBlog.com</a></p>]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p></p><p>Looking to get up to speed quickly on e-discovery issues? You may want to check out the following recently released book:</p><blockquote><p>E-Discovery Plain and Simple discusses Information Technology through the different viewpoints of two national experts in this field. Allison Brecher was one of the first corporate attorneys in the United States to manage electronic discovery. As the Director of Information Management and Strategy at Marsh &#038; McLennan Companies, a publicly traded Fortune 200 company, Ms. Brecher manages all electronic discovery for litigation and other matters involving MMC’s more than 50,000 employees in over 100 countries. Shawnna Childress, an Associate Director of Navigant Consulting, brings more than a decade of expertise in Information Technology as a consultant to numerous companies. Ms. Childress is also the co-founder of Women in eDiscovery, a national network of female attorneys, consultants, and technology professionals with more than 3,500 members in more than 25 chapters worldwide. Ms. Brecher and Ms. Childress were also selected to membership on the Advisory Board of the Georgetown University Law Center E-Discovery Institute, a leading academic organization devoted to continuing legal education and policymaking in electronic discovery.</p></blockquote><p>Visit the <a
href="http://www.brecherchildress.com/">authors&#8217; website</a> to learn more.</p><p>Like this post? <b><a
href="http://www.inhouseblog.com/subscribe">Subscribe to InhouseBlog's FREE weekly email newsletter.</a></b> Unsubscribe at any time.<span
id="pty_trigger"></span><p><a
href="http://www.inhouseblog.com">InhouseBlog.com</a></p>]]></content:encoded> <wfw:commentRss>http://www.inhouseblog.com/ediscovery-plain-simple-guide/feed/</wfw:commentRss> <slash:comments>0</slash:comments> </item> <item><title>Motion to Compel Defense Counsel to Wear Appropriate Shoes at Trial</title><link>http://www.inhouseblog.com/motion_to_compel_defense_counsel_to_wear_appropriate_shoes_at_trial/</link> <comments>http://www.inhouseblog.com/motion_to_compel_defense_counsel_to_wear_appropriate_shoes_at_trial/#comments</comments> <pubDate>Mon, 13 Jul 2009 06:35:07 +0000</pubDate> <dc:creator>Editors</dc:creator> <category><![CDATA[News]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Litigation]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Weird/Wacky/Funny]]></category> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://www.inhouseblog.com/?p=1025</guid> <description><![CDATA[<p>Yes, you read that correctly. It&#8217;s another installment of the weird, wacky and funny &#8211; this time courtesy of the Palm Beach County court system. Head over to Holier Than Thou: Motion to Compel Defense Counsel to Wear Appropriate Shoes at Trial to see the motion. Like this post? Subscribe to InhouseBlog's FREE weekly email [...]</p><p><a
href="http://www.inhouseblog.com">InhouseBlog.com</a></p>]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p></p><p>Yes, you read that correctly.  It&#8217;s another installment of the <a
href="http://www.inhouseblog.com/tag/weirdwackyfunny">weird, wacky and funny</a> &#8211; this time courtesy of the Palm Beach County court system.</p><p>Head over to <a
href="http://abovethelaw.com/2009/07/motion_to_compel_proper_footwear.php">Holier Than Thou: Motion to Compel Defense Counsel to Wear Appropriate Shoes at Trial</a> to see the motion.</p><p>Like this post? <b><a
href="http://www.inhouseblog.com/subscribe">Subscribe to InhouseBlog's FREE weekly email newsletter.</a></b> Unsubscribe at any time.<span
id="pty_trigger"></span><p><a
href="http://www.inhouseblog.com">InhouseBlog.com</a></p>]]></content:encoded> <wfw:commentRss>http://www.inhouseblog.com/motion_to_compel_defense_counsel_to_wear_appropriate_shoes_at_trial/feed/</wfw:commentRss> <slash:comments>0</slash:comments> </item> <item><title>In-House Counsel See Litigation Spike in Next Year</title><link>http://www.inhouseblog.com/inhouse-counsel-litigation-spike-year/</link> <comments>http://www.inhouseblog.com/inhouse-counsel-litigation-spike-year/#comments</comments> <pubDate>Mon, 20 Oct 2008 10:23:22 +0000</pubDate> <dc:creator>Law.com</dc:creator> <category><![CDATA[News]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Litigation]]></category> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://www.inhouseblog.com/2008/10/inhouse-counsel-litigation-spike-year.html</guid> <description><![CDATA[<p>Corporate in-house counsel anticipate a litigation spike next year to reverse a two-year dip in lawsuits and regulatory proceedings, according to Fulbright &#038; Jaworski&#8217;s 2008 Litigation Trends Survey. The results illustrate the shift from a long period of prosperity to the start of &#8220;a period of serious economic challenge that is likely to fuel litigation [...]</p><p><a
href="http://www.inhouseblog.com">InhouseBlog.com</a></p>]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p></p><p>Corporate in-house counsel anticipate a litigation spike next year to reverse a two-year dip in lawsuits and regulatory proceedings, according to Fulbright &#038; Jaworski&#8217;s 2008 Litigation Trends Survey. The results illustrate the shift from a long period of prosperity to the start of &#8220;a period of serious economic challenge that is likely to fuel litigation over who is to blame and who should pay for the consequences,&#8221; said Stephen C. Dillard, who chairs the global litigation practice at Fulbright.</p><p><a
href="http://www.law.com/jsp/ihc/PubArticleIHC.jsp?id=1202425297664&#038;rss=ihc">In-House Counsel See Litigation Spike in Next Year</a></p><p>Like this post? <b><a
href="http://www.inhouseblog.com/subscribe">Subscribe to InhouseBlog's FREE weekly email newsletter.</a></b> Unsubscribe at any time.<span
id="pty_trigger"></span><p><a
href="http://www.inhouseblog.com">InhouseBlog.com</a></p>]]></content:encoded> <wfw:commentRss>http://www.inhouseblog.com/inhouse-counsel-litigation-spike-year/feed/</wfw:commentRss> <slash:comments>0</slash:comments> </item> </channel> </rss>
