concern about public disclosure and corporate governance inSOXAs requi - PDF document

1 concern about public disclosure and corp
concern about public disclosure and corporate governance inSOXAÕs requirements also extend to eeth to the Tigerolume XXVIINo. 3Summer 2005 Zamos v. StroudÕsZamosv. Stroudlawyers (collectively, ÒStroudÓ) whoSection425.16 of the California Code of Civil Procedure that theCalifornia Supreme Court granted StroudÕs Petition for Review.as well as the drafters of the Restatement Second of Torts, recog-Swat-Fame, Inc. v. Goldsteinanzantv. Daimler Chrysler Corp Daimler Chrysler Corpages incurred from the time the attorney reasonably should havecaused the dismissal of the lawsuit after learning it has no merit,The Sarbanes-Oxley Act_____________________

2 ___ Eve Coddon the Scope of Malicious Pr
___ Eve Coddon the Scope of Malicious Prosecution remains unclear. This is because the source of a securities plain-tiffÕs underlying loss will ordinarily be the false quarterly or annu-al report Ð not the certification itself. And, as noted below, a com-panyÕs principal officers are already responsible as signatories tothe companyÕs periodic disclosures under the Exchange Act.Thus, from a plaintiffÕs perspective, establishing a causal relation-false financial report itself) and a plaintiffÕs financial loss wouldof 1995 (PSLRA), particularly the requirement that a plaintiffU.S.C. ¤78u-4(b)(2). As one commentator has noted,private litigants to

3 meet the enhanced pleading requirementsd
meet the enhanced pleading requirementsdefendantÕs knowledge or, at bare minimum, reckless disregardPrior to the enactment of Sarbanes-Oxley, courts contem-plating the PSLRAÕs pleading standards found boilerplate alle-gations in reference to a given defendantÕs knowledge of mis-representations or omissions unconvincing. However, SOX cer-resolving the issue of an individual defendantÕs knowledge orLitigation, 42 Duq. L. Rev. 293, 311-12 (2004).In the event that one of the companyÕs financial reports isthe truthfulness of the companyÕs periodic reports. Sections 302,inaccuracy, the choices for the certifying officer seem to be these:false certif

4 ication. In either case, a securities pl
ication. In either case, a securities plaintiff Ñ whoseSOXA Will Provide Additional Bases For The Filing Ofdirectors on behalf of the company. Put simply, plaintiffs suing on brief, you take advantage of the Court of AppealÕs mediation pro-gram and settle the case. Because one of your clientÕs keyhow daunting it can be to obtain aappellate courtÕs docket. Parties andonly those types of case well-suitedNeary v. Regents of(Code Civ. Proc., ¤ 128, subd. (a)(8).)Recently, in an attorneysÕ fees dispute between previous andHardisty v. Hinton & Alfert Rule 11: Returning the Teeth to the Tiger__________mittee on Courts, the Internet and Intellectual P

5 ropery. WhenÒthree strikesÓ for lawyers.
ropery. WhenÒthree strikesÓ for lawyers. Lawyers who have had sanctionsthree times in the same federal district during the attorneyÕsAbolish Rule 11Õs current safe harbor provision which allowsplaintiff was allegedly injured, or where the defendantÕs principalthe F.R.C.P. Moreover, for the first time, this new Rule 11 would apply to Not So Fast Ñ A Stipulated Reversal ofJudgment Belies Its Name Jens B. Koepke Honorable Victoria Gerrard Chaney of theCivil West Courthouse.and TechnologyMondays, which is Judge ChaneyÕs law andmotion day. When not engaged in trial, lawated by the Court and counsel at the Trial ReadinessHowever, Mandatory Settlemen

6 t Conferences handledtrial, but must fir
t Conferences handledtrial, but must first coordinate with Judge ChaneyÕs staffPre-Trialother than those found in the court rules. However,¥ Judge Chaney conducts a hearing at the Trial Read-trial is also discussed with counsel at the Trial Readinessat the Trial Readiness Conference. Hon. Victoria G. Chaney from The Hon. Victoria G. Chaney witnesses will continue to grow. I recently represented a Hongwhose witnesses all testified through a translator. In this article Ithe entityÕs witnesses must testifythrough a translator. Identify and Diffusedices against a foreign party, andpossibly, in favor of the opposingU.S. party. Mattel is a large wel

7 l-headquarters in Los Angeles County.Pre
l-headquarters in Los Angeles County.Predictably, throughout the trialMattelÕs counsel stated:ÒIn our country, itÕs against the law to steal intellectual prop-erty. This case is about a Chinese company from Hong Kong,the defendant Realtoy, that repeatedly stole MattelÕs intellectu-al property.Ó (Emphasis added.)be receptive to MattelÕs theme of a Chinese company Òknocking-offÓ the products and packaging of a large U.S. company. To rebutMattelÕs assertion, it was important to emphasize, beginning withthe opening statement, that Realtoy: (1) is a well-establishedcompany with a broad product line; (2) sells high-quality prod-major U.S.-based reta

8 ilers such as Toys R Us and KayBee Toys.
ilers such as Toys R Us and KayBee Toys.ÒstealÓ MattelÕs property rights. As the jurors began to understandreceptive to (and ultimately rejected) MattelÕs argument thatRealtoy was ÒstealingÓ MattelÕs intellectual property. Similarly, we were concerned some jurors might be reluctantto believe the motives of RealtoyÕs Chinese executives. Thus, we In the Thicket of Appellate Jurisdiction__________Judicial Advice________________________________against D-Beam. In the end, however, the Ninth Circuit ruled:BeamÕs claims and they are dismissed.Ó adequate to give notice of D-BeamÕs intent to appeal. Further-counsel. ÒAllowing Evans to advocate D-BeamÕs

9 claims, when he Representing A Foreign
claims, when he Representing A Foreign Party at Trial exhibits available to jurors at the time of the Trial Readiness¥ Judge Chaney prefers to pre-instruct the jury, but proce-available to avoid wasting a trial day.Post-Trial 11 The Sarbanes-Oxley Act________________________ (323) 939-1999 ¥ FAX: (323) 935-6622e-mail: abtl@abtl.org ¥ www.abtl.orgJeff S. WestermanHon. Victoria G. Chaney ¥ Eve M. Coddonayne S. Flick ¥ Allen B. Grodsky ¥ Hon. William F. HighbergerDaniel P. Lefler ¥ Hon. William A. MacLaughlinRobert F. Scoular ¥ Kenneth N. Smersfelt ¥ Julia StricklandJohn C. Ulin ¥ Hon. Andrew J. Wistrichravers D. Wood ¥ Debra YangASSOCIATE EDITO

10 RS Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker LLP
RS Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker LLP.office of Greenberg Traurig LLP.& Richland LLP, a firm specializing in appellate practice. He isis Of Counsel at Wolf, Rifkin, Shapiro &office of Greenberg Traurig LLP.is Of Counsel at Wolf, Rifkin, Shapiro &Loeb & Loeb LLP.vate right of action Ñ can become actionable via a ¤17200claim under ¤ 17200 or another state consumer protectionstatute remains an open question. In a decision earlier this year,CaliforniaÕs intermediate appellate court held, in resolving what itBowen v. ZiasonRoskind v.Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Company, 165 F. Supp. 2d 1059Lippitt v. Raymond James Financial. 340 F. 3d 1033 (9th

11 Cir. 2003)). Although a minori-see Denis
Cir. 2003)). Although a minori-see Denison v. Kelly, 759 F.Onesti v. Thomson & McKinnon., 619 F. Supp. 1262 (N.D. Ill. 1985); Corbin v. Pickrell, 667 P. 2d 1304 (Ariz. 1983)), the majorityPlaintiffs Will Argue For An Implied Right Of Action Undermore than ten years before the federal courts, in Kardon v.., 69 F. Supp. 512 (E.D. Pa. 1946), deter-See Blue Chip Stamps v. Manor Drug Storesork v. Bankers Life & CasualtyCort v. Ashbased solely on federal law. is unclear. On the one hand, there are two sections of the statuteenforce prohibition against companyÕs officers or directors fraud- greater accountability on the legal practitioner. In ÒRule 1

12 1:Returning the Teeth to the Tiger,Ó Ste
1:Returning the Teeth to the Tiger,Ó Stephen M. Levine monitorssubstantially revise Fed.R.Civ.P. 11 by imposing stricter standardson attorneys. Similarly, Eve Coddon,theme, Robert L. Meylan explores Los Angeles, California 90035 PRSRTSTDU.S. POSTAGEPERMITNO. 196before it takes effect. Moreover, by passage of this Bill, the HouseH.R. 420 was ordered to be reported out of the JudiciaryCommitteeÕs Subcommittee on Courts on May 25, 2005. It isRule 11: Returning the Teeth to the Tiger__________ cles regarding appellate procedure. Jens B. Koepke has authoredFinally, Raymond Kim has penned the second in a series of arti-the Hon. Victoria G. Chaney.