Betting the House – Virtual Deal Rooms — CIOUpdate.com

Managing the details of mergers and acquisitions (M&A) pose many logistical and technological issues that require the insight of the CIO. Due diligence demands interested investors be able to examine all pertinent documents before they decide whether to acquire or merge with a company.

Traditionally, these interested parties would go to a physical space to review the data in a library setting. Hosting multiple buyers on-site at the same time can be chaotic, while scheduling each prospective investor independently can drag out the transaction process by weeks or months.

Today, businesses have a better choice: the virtual deal room (VDR). A VDR is the electronic equivalent of the physical “deal room” that financial institutions, law firms and corporations traditionally have used to host potential buyers and sellers of businesses. The VDR is helping revolutionize due diligence by streamlining the communication process between buyers and sellers. It provides a secure internet-based repository for documents to be reviewed by authorized individuals interested in the transaction.

While the VDR offers businesses an efficient means of selling assets, the successful use of a VDR hinges on the CIO becoming an integral part of the “deal” team to ensure proper design, implementation and compliance with corporate policies. The CIO’s technological expertise also can prove instrumental to help ensure that the selected solution is cost-efficient, secure and accessible for users at all levels

via Betting the House – Virtual Deal Rooms — CIOUpdate.com.

LinkedInPinterestEvernoteWordPressBlogger PostEmailShare

Canadian companies struggle with eDiscovery | Messaging Architects

Canadian companies have been advised by eDiscovery experts to turn to third-party vendors to handle their eDiscovery responsibilities as it becomes an even more important and troublesome task for organizations in all industries, according to the Financial Post.

Using third-party solutions and vendors has helped companies reduce the costs related to eDiscovery. Frequently, companies with substantial funds involved in a legal battle with poorer organizations will make large discovery requests to prohibit their opponents from defending themselves well. For these poorer companies, developing a plan with the help of an outside resource will make eDiscovery a less dangerous and costly process.

via Canadian companies struggle with eDiscovery | Messaging Architects.

LinkedInPinterestEvernoteWordPressBlogger PostEmailShare

Hearing from America on Intellectual Property | The White House

South façade of the White House, the executive...
Image via Wikipedia

Posted by Victoria Espinel on May 20, 2010 at 10:10 AM EDT

Over the last few months, I have met with big technology companies that make sophisticated hardware and network systems as well as early stage companies that are just in the process of getting off the ground, all of which are hurt by IP infringement.

I met with a company that manufactures cement in innovative ways that will protect our environment, and with the heads of venture capital funds that are investing in green technologies, all of which face the risk of losing their new green technology (and the jobs that come with it) as a result of IP theft.

I sat down with book publishers, movie studios, music companies, and videogame companies, all of whom are faced with widespread problems resulting from internet piracy.  I heard concerns from many other sectors as well: our airplane industry, small manufacturers, automobile industry, steelworkers, textile manufacturers, and biotech, software, and telecommunication companies.

I also sat down with those who want strong defenses and exceptions to intellectual property liability, including academics across the country, or consumer rights organizations.  I met with Internet companies that organize information and help our citizens find out what they want to know about the world today and connect people around the globe, and Internet auction sites that allow consumers to buy what they want at the price they want, all of which are affected by our enforcement efforts.

Through this process, I have learned how many different types of businesses are affected and harmed by infringement of intellectual property.  I have been impressed by the level of knowledge and concern at the very top of some of our biggest and most innovative companies, responsible for millions of American jobs.  I had the opportunity to sit down with CEOs from Intel, eBay, Calera, Google, Warner Bros, and Pandora, among many others, representing nearly every innovation-intensive sector of our economy.

Perhaps most importantly, through these meetings and through the comments we received from the general public, we have received some excellent recommendations about how the United States government can improve our efforts to enforce our intellectual property, with some of the best ideas coming from the smallest companies.

via Hearing from America on Intellectual Property | The White House.

LinkedInPinterestEvernoteWordPressBlogger PostEmailShare

Federal Pilot Program Curbs E-Discovery Fights | National Law Journal

Seal of the United States Court of Appeals for...
Image via Wikipedia

The results of the first phase of a closely watched federal court pilot program on electronic discovery show that having a set of fair-play rules at the outset of a case helps quell pretrial brawls between parties.

The goal of the program, launched in May 2009 and spearheaded by James Holderman, chief judge of the Northern District of Illinois, was to find ways to reduce the massive costs and burdens of electronic discovery. Chairing the program is Magistrate Judge Jan Nolan, also of the Northern District of Illinois.

The first-phase of the 7th Circuit‘s pilot program indicated that when judges and attorneys had a set of specific principles to guide electronic discovery, it improved the process — or, at least, didn’t make it worse.

“It was very encouraging,” said Holderman.

The first phase of the program involved 13 district court judges overseeing 93 civil cases and 285 attorneys between October 2009 and March 2010. The program required the judges and attorneys to follow a set of principles, drafted by the program’s committee members, during electronic discovery. Those principles called for:

• parties to recognize that cooperation with opposing counsel does not compromise zealous advocacy;

• parties to resolve electronic discovery disputes early, without court intervention;

• parties to make electronic discovery demands proportionate to the particulars of the case;

• parties to meet before an initial status conference with the judge to discuss discovery;

• when a dispute arose, each party to select a liaison attorney to deal with discovery and to attend hearings;

• parties to refrain from making overly broad preservation requests;

• parties to take reasonable steps to preserve electronically stored information;

• judges and attorneys to know the civil procedure rules pertaining to electronically stored information.

The participating judges and attorneys were sent a survey asking them to evaluate the program. All of the 13 judges and 133 of the attorneys responded.

About 90 percent of the judges thought that the principles increased or greatly increased the attorneys' familiarity with their clients’ technology relating to electronic discovery. All the judges agreed or strongly agreed that the use of discovery liaisons increased the efficiency of the discovery process.

About 43 percent of the attorneys said that the principles increased or greatly increased the fairness of the discovery process. About 55 percent said the principles had no effect on the fairness, and fewer than 3 percent said it made the process less fair. About 61 percent said that the principles had no effect on their ability to resolve discovery disputes without court involvement.

Asked whether the principles affected their ability to zealously represent their clients, 74 percent said the principles had no effect while 22 percent said that the principles increased their ability to zealously represent their clients. About 4 percent indicated a negative effect.

via Law.com – Federal Pilot Program Curbs E-Discovery Fights.

LinkedInPinterestEvernoteWordPressBlogger PostEmailShare

5 things you should know about litigation vs. arbitration | Lexology.com

The London Court of International Arbitration
Image via Wikipedia

When deciding whether to agree to arbitration in your next automation contract, keep in mind the following differences between resolving disputes via the traditional litigation process versus arbitration:

  • Arbitration can be cheaper and faster. The general rule is that arbitration is a faster and more streamlined process, making it cheaper than the typical litigation process in most, but not all, cases.
  • Possibility of knowledgeable arbitrator. Because of the way an arbitrator is chosen, the parties can agree to an arbitrator who has specialized knowledge, which can be an advantage when technical issues are involved.
  • Very limited appeal rights in arbitration. The parties generally have to abide by an arbitrator’s decision, even if it is wrong. Cases that are litigated can be appealed and reversed.
  • Limited consolidation in arbitration. In a typical court case, all parties who may be involved in or contributed to a dispute can be compelled to join one lawsuit. In arbitration, parties cannot be made to join in someone else’s arbitration process unless they agree.
  • No jury in arbitration. There is no right to a jury trial in arbitration. Instead, disputes decided in arbitration will often be decided by one arbitrator

via Lexology – 5 things you should know about litigation vs. arbitration.

LinkedInPinterestEvernoteWordPressBlogger PostEmailShare

When Judges Google | Law.com

Judges come daily to the bench with the same baggage or maybe the same idiosyncratic lenses as the rest of us.

William James elegantly referred to it as being under “the total push and presence of the cosmos.” But even better was Supreme Court Justice Benjamin Cardozo’s wondrous phraseology in “The Nature of the Judicial Process:” “There is in each of us a stream of tendency, whether you choose to call it philosophy or not, which gives us coherence and direction to thought and action. Justices cannot escape the current any more than other mortals… . In this mental background every problem finds its setting. We may try to see things as objectively as we please. None the less, we can never see them with any eyes except our own.” A judge may be down on religion or guilt ridden in favor of the underclass, or may unalterably believe that God, if there is a God, and government should only help those who help themselves. A judge may see legislative fiat as buffoonery and presidents as political whores who will do anything for a victory.

Indeed, a president or lesser executive appoints judges, or an electorate elects them, precisely because of those subjective experiences — “their own eyes.” Judges operate from their own perspectives. A judge cannot be, any more than anyone else can be, defined or encapsulated by their ethnicity, gender, scholarly, political or legal backgrounds, nor by their answers to litmus tests on critical social or political issues by the opposition du jour during confirmation hearings.

It is a small wonder that, in the quotidian workings of the courts and in the thousands of rulings that any one judge makes every year, a judge down the hall or in a different court may come at the real stuff of the judicial process from a completely different perspective, and with a potentially starkly different result. Can we, either as members of the court or as everyday citizens who come before the court, require that the judge undress herself from her robes to tell us what she viscerally thinks because of her life experiences that so inevitably and critically impact her rulings? Certainly, and for some perhaps sadly, not!

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals was recently faced with an unusual appeal in which a criminal defendant raised an intriguing question about the limits on what perspectives a judge can properly bring to bear on the bench. In United States v Bari, No. 09 1074-cr, 2010 WL 1006555 (2d Cir. Mar. 22, 2010), the 2nd Circuit considered whether then-District Judge Denny Chin (now on the 2nd Circuit bench) erred in a supervised release revocation hearing in considering information confirmed by the court's own Internet searching. In other words, can a judge confirm his own hunches by Googling?

via Law.com – When Judges Google.

LinkedInPinterestEvernoteWordPressBlogger PostEmailShare

Scaling and E-Discovery Process  || ESIBytes

Listen to Karl Schieneman, Director of Analytics and Review from JurInnov talk to Michael Scott, former head of E-Discovery at Alcoa, Inc and currently a legal consultant focusing on import and export laws as well as electronic discovery, about the challenges of creating a scalable E-Discovery process. It is not difficult for companies in bet the company litigation to create a process to deal with cases. Budget is never an issue and tools can be sources which appear to meet the challenge. When things get interesting is the smaller case. The unique challenges this approach put on an organization as well as what solutions might be will be discussed.

via Scaling and E-Discovery Process  || ESIBytes.

LinkedInPinterestEvernoteWordPressBlogger PostEmailShare

Apple, Mozilla chase Google with browser stability moves – Computerworld

Mozilla Firefox word mark. Guestimated clear s...
Image via Wikipedia

Apple and Mozilla last week took a page from Google to beef up the stability of their respective browsers, Safari and Firefox.

Apple’s move may also result in a faster future Safari that’s able to use the multiple cores in most modern machines’ processors, an analyst said.

Last Thursday, Apple developer Anders Carlsson announced WebKit2, an API (application programming interface) layer for Apple’s version of the open-source WebKit browser engine. Carlsson, who works on Safari at Apple, also contributes to WebKit, the engine that powers Safari and Google’s Chrome.

“WebKit2 is designed from the ground up to support a split process model, where the Web content (JavaScript, HTML, layout, etc.) lives in a separate process,” Carlsson explained in a message on a WebKit mailing list. “This model is similar to what Google Chrome offers, with the major difference being that we have built the process split model directly into the framework, allowing other clients to use it.”

Google pioneered process separation when it debuted Chrome in September 2008. Chrome, for example, uses a separate process for each tab, a practice that helps the browser survive crashes by a plug-in running in one tab or the failure of a Web application in another. Such compartmentalization adds overhead, primarily in memory use — each tab is essentially another iteration of the browser — but can dramatically enhance stability.

via Apple, Mozilla chase Google with browser stability moves – Computerworld.

LinkedInPinterestEvernoteWordPressBlogger PostEmailShare

LPO (Legal Process Outsourcing) and Document Review | Ezinearticles

Legal Process Outsourcing (LPO) is an industry that has been growing rapidly in the recent year and involves outsourcing of legal works by the legal communities of the developed countries like the US to lower wage developing countries like India.

LPO usually involves processes like Legal Research, Document Drafting, legal contracts, agreements, client letters, patent applications and various other Intellectual Property research and Paralegal Services.

LPO is increasingly being preferred these days because it has become a time consuming and expensive process, mainly triggered by data explosion, technological evolution, and the sudden increase in electronic stored information. One cannot also deny the fact that US practices lack consistent teams to perform document review work.

Document review in the context of litigation is done in two levels. The first level of document review is the discovery phase and first part in any litigation. This process is performed after receiving the legal “request for production of documents”. During this process the objective is to reduce the document set into a workable and responsive data set. Even though the e-discovery best practices have reduced a data set by almost 70% there still may remain millions of documents to be reviewed. This is because the total quantity of documents has multiplied several times over the years. In the second level these workable documents are reviewed more seriously by seniors.

As legal document review forms the major part of litigation expenses today law firms are trying out all methods to reduce the cost of litigation and outsourcing of e-discovery is a viable solution. During the document review process quite often millions of documents have to be searched and identified for

  • Case relevance
  • Confidentiality
  • Privileged /protection
  • “key or “hot” status

Besides in litigation, document review is also performed in matters of regulatory compliance and corporate due diligence.

via LPO (Legal Process Outsourcing) and Document Review.

LinkedInPinterestEvernoteWordPressBlogger PostEmailShare

Google, Microsoft, ACLU Form ‘Digital Due Process’ for E-Privacy Reform – DailyFinance

Google (GOOG), Microsoft (MSFT) and the American Civil Liberties Union might not seem like obvious partners for too many issues, but they’ve teamed up create a new advocacy group called Digital Due Process. Its goal is to get the federal government to update current legislation governing how law-enforcement agencies gain access to electronic data.

The consortium, which also includes DailyFinance parent AOL (AOL), wants Congress to update the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), which was passed in 1986, and is widely considered to be antiquated.

“Originally designed to protect us from unwarranted government intrusion while ensuring that law enforcement had the tools necessary to protect public safety, it was written long before most people had heard of email, cell phones or the ‘cloud’ — the term used for programs helping people store personal data like photos and documents online,” Richard Salgado, Google senior counsel for law enforcement and information security, wrote in a blog post.

via Google, Microsoft, ACLU Form ‘Digital Due Process’ for E-Privacy Reform – DailyFinance.

LinkedInPinterestEvernoteWordPressBlogger PostEmailShare