FCPA Enforcement in 2010: Prepare for Blastoff Thursday, 11 March 2010

Source: "Shared" via Dominic in Google Reader | mrposse

Marsh & McLennan Seeking To Sell Kroll For $1.3 Billion Thursday, 11 March 2010

3/8/2010 -- Insurance brokerage Marsh & McLennan Companies Inc. (MMC: News ) has put Kroll, its corporate investigations division, up for sale for about $1.3 billion, according to a report in the Financial Times on Monday.

According to the FT report, the sale has attracted private equity firms including the Carlyle Group, Apax Partners and General Atlantic. These firms entered bids by the deadline for first expressions of interest in late February, while BCPartners might be a potential buyer alongside one or two trade bidders, the report noted, citing people familiar with the situation.

Other expressions of interest for Kroll include from its founder, Jules Kroll, who sold the business to Marsh in 2004 for $1.9 billion. The founder of Kroll recently launched a new boutique investigations firm called K2. He no longer owns a significant stake in Marsh.

Source: "Shared" via Dominic in Google Reader | Brad Jenkins

Analysis: Is the wireless industry paranoid? - ITWorld Canada Thursday, 11 March 2010

Analysis: Is the wireless industry paranoid? ITWorld Canada This will undoubtedly bring new interest to existing guidelines on e-discovery in Ontario and in Canada, as many Canadian companies must now consider these ...

Source: "Shared" via Dominic in Google Reader | (author unknown)

How to Sound Like a Legal Technology Guru in 10 Minutes (Or: A Press Release ... - Above the Law Thursday, 11 March 2010

Above the Law

How to Sound Like a Legal Technology Guru in 10 Minutes (Or: A Press Release ... Above the Law This is one of the big buzz phrases in e-discovery today. Basically, this company is saying “let us take care of your problem, and we will do it in a way ...

Source: "Shared" via Dominic in Google Reader | (author unknown)

Do You Comply with the New Massachusetts Information Security Regulation? Thursday, 11 March 2010

By Bruce H. Nielson, K&L Gates Partner, Washington D.C.

What Does the Regulation Require?

Every business that “owns or licenses personal information” about a Massachusetts resident must “develop, implement, and maintain” a comprehensive written information security program (WISP).  “Owns or licenses” is defined as “receives, stores, maintains, processes, or otherwise has access to personal information in connection with the provision of goods or services or in connection with employment.”  “Personal information” (PI) means first name (or initial) and last name combined with a Social Security number, driver’s license or state-issued ID card number, or financial account or credit or debit card number (with or without any required password, security or access code, or personal identification number).

The WISP must contain administrative, technical and physical safeguards for PI that are “appropriate to (a) the size, scope and type of business . . .; (b) the amount of resources available . . .; (c) the amount of stored data; and (d) the need for security and confidentiality” of the PI. 

WISP – Required Elements

The elements required in a WISP include:

• Designating one or more employees to maintain the program
• Identifying and assessing foreseeable internal and external risks to the security, confidentiality or integrity of records containing PI
• Evaluating and improving safeguards for limiting risks, including employee training and compliance and means for detecting and preventing security failures
• Developing security policies regarding storage, access and transportation of records containing PI outside of business premises
• Imposing disciplinary measures for violations of security rules
• Preventing terminated employees from accessing records containing PI
• Imposing restrictions on physical access to records containing PI
• Regular monitoring of the operation of the WISP
• Reviewing security measures annually or whenever a material change in business practices implicates the security or integrity of records containing PI
• Documenting responsive actions taken in connection with any security breach incident and conducting post-incident reviews
• Selecting service providers capable of maintaining appropriate measures to protect PI
• Contractually requiring service providers to maintain appropriate security measures (every service provider contract entered into before March 1, 2010 is deemed to comply)

Computer System Requirements

For businesses that electronically store or transmit personal information, the WISP must also include the establishment and maintenance of a computer security system (including any wireless system) that, “at a minimum, and to the extent technically feasible,” contains:

• Secure user authentication protocols, including control of user IDs, a “reasonably secure” method of assigning and selecting passwords (or use of unique identifier technologies), control of data security passwords, restricting access to active users, and blocking access after multiple unsuccessful attempts
• Secure access control measures that restrict access to PI to only those who need such information to perform their jobs and that assign unique identifications plus passwords that are designed to maintain the security of access controls
• Encryption of all transmitted records and files that contain PI and travel across public networks
• Encryption of all PI transmitted wirelessly or stored on laptops or other portable devices
• Reasonable monitoring of systems for unauthorized use of or access to PI
• For files containing PI on a system connected to the Internet, reasonably up-to-date firewall protection and operating system security patches designed to maintain the integrity of the PI
• Reasonably up-to-date versions of system security agent software, including malware protection and patches and virus definitions
• Education and training of employees on the proper use of the computer security system and the importance of PI security

What is the Penalty for Non-Compliance?

Violators may be subject to a $5,000 civil penalty for each violation. How violations will be counted for purposes of the penalty is unclear. If violations are counted on a per-record basis, businesses with thousands of records containing PI of Massachusetts residents could potentially face fines of millions of dollars.

How Can My Business Comply?

The revised, final regulation is not quite as demanding as earlier versions, but it is still a tough regulation that may require businesses to revise existing – or create new – WISPs. The regulation is also indicative of the direction in which state and federal information security laws are heading. Because of this, even businesses not subject to the regulation may want to consider creating and implementing WISPs that comply with the standards of the Massachusetts regulation.
 

Source: "Shared" via Dominic in Google Reader | K&L Gates

Hosted Exchange: Right for Your Business? - TMC Net Thursday, 11 March 2010

Hosted Exchange: Right for Your Business? TMC Net But have you thought about protection from e-discovery? And the advantage of hosted Exchange is it also keeps your data confidential so no one else can ... and more »

Source: "Shared" via Dominic in Google Reader | (author unknown)

Gartner Includes ZyLAB in Hype Cycle for Legal and Regulatory Information Governance Thursday, 11 March 2010

ZyLAB Mentioned as a Sample Vendor that Delivers E-Discovery Software

The most recent “Hype Cycle for Legal and Regulatory Information Governance, 2009” report includes ZyLAB within the section focused on e-discovery software. Gartner Hype Cycles provide a graphic representation of the maturity and adoption of technologies and applications, and how they are potentially relevant to solving real business problems and exploiting new opportunities. Gartner Hype Cycle methodology gives readers a view of how a technology or application will evolve over time, providing a sound source of insight to manage its deployment within the context of your specific business goals.

The ZyLAB eDiscovery & Production system is aligned with all critical EDRM phases and addresses all key aspects of e-discovery, from information management to producing relevant data for opposing counsel as well as for use in litigation software. The system offers more advanced third-party product compatible features than any other eDiscovery solution on the market today. It can be completely integrated with other litigation software and common repositories such as Microsoft SharePoint, databases, as well as ECM, CRM and ERP systems. The platform is built around an XML data repository and provides authorized reviewers with access via standard Internet browsers. This helps accelerate case analysis and document review, as well as enables discovery activities to be automatically performed in-house, thereby allowing customers to maintain control and minimize costs.

 The report notes that e-discovery software is “At the Peak” of the Hype Cycle. Information provided within this section includes a definition of e-discovery, position and adoption speed justification, user advice, business impact, benefit rating, market penetration, maturity and sample vendors.

 Our engineers have been building information management and e-discovery solutions for over two decades and have team with legal organizations to ensure all user requirements are fulfilled. The ZyLAB system addresses all the key aspects of e-discovery from information management to producing relevant data for opposing counsel and for use in litigation software. Providing a comprehensive solution is why we continue to be included in prestigious reports such as this one.

 For more information:

 -       ZyLAB eDiscovery and Production System

 -       White Paper: Litigation readiness and Compliance

 -       Brochure; ZyLAB eDiscovery and Production

Source: "Shared" via Dominic in Google Reader | jcscholtes

Data Security Regulation Prompts Storage Policy Review Thursday, 11 March 2010

A sweeping Massachusetts data security regulation that kicked in on March 1 is prompting companies to seek legal review of how they store and use the personal information of Massachusetts residents.

The regulation defines "personal information" as a name plus a Social Security number, driver's license or other government-issued number, or bank or credit card account number.

Local and out-of-state law firms are jockeying to help companies of all sizes change their procedures to comply with the regulation, which was initially slated to take effect on Jan. 1, 2009, then Jan. 1, 2010.

Holland & Knight's firmwide technology partner, Ieuan Mahony, a Boston intellectual property lawyer, spoke with The National Law Journal about the scope of the regulation and how the firm is helping clients comply with it. The Q&A has been edited for length and clarity.

To Continue Reading: Click Here
-------------------------------------------
Source: Law.com
By: Sheri Qualters

Source: "Shared" via Dominic in Google Reader | Bob Krantz

EDna is Still Reeling in Suitors and the Press is Interested Thursday, 11 March 2010

Source: "Shared" via Dominic in Google Reader | Sharon D. Nelson, Esq.

Negotiating Cloud Computing Agreements Thursday, 11 March 2010

Cloud computing has been characterized as a paradigm-shifting phenomenon that will change how we purchase IT resources. Though given different names, cloud computing has been around for some time, and the legal lessons learned from experience with traditional software licensing and outsourcing agreements can and should be applied to cloud agreements, but there are new issues which will need new solutions.

Cloud computing is a loose term that describes a variety of data storage, processing, and application services, normally provided by a third party using equipment not located on the customer's site. These services include providing raw processing power on demand, special purpose applications on a subscription basis, and remote data storage. An early form of cloud computing was Application Service Provider or ASP services, and another is currently known as software as a service or SaaS. Cloud services are normally provided using internet technology, where the customer uses inexpensive hardware and an internet browser to access the service and/or remotely stored data.

The ease of access and simplicity of using cloud applications are part of its attraction. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for the legal issues related to cloud computing. While traditional software licensing and IT outsourcing agreements can be used as a model for cloud computing, there are new risks and business practices not addressed in those older agreements that must be considered.

OUTSOURCING AGREEMENTS AS A MODEL FOR CLOUD AGREEMENTS

To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------
Source: law.com
By: Michael P. Bennett

Source: "Shared" via Dominic in Google Reader | Jeffery Fehrman

Index Engines and Venio Systems Partner to Deliver an End to End EDRM e ... - Business Wire (press release) Thursday, 11 March 2010

Index Engines and Venio Systems Partner to Deliver an End to End EDRM e ... Business Wire (press release) HOLMDEL, NJ--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Index Engines, the leader in enterprise discovery solutions, today announced a partnership with Venio Systems. ... and more »

Source: "Shared" via Dominic in Google Reader | (author unknown)

EDiscovery leads in March issue of American Legal Technology Insider Thursday, 11 March 2010

The March issue of Charles Christian’s American Legal Technology Insider is available here.It leads with the headline Shake-up time for e-Discovery sector, with Iron Mountain’s acquisition of Mimosa Systems and the report that Marsh & McLennan Companies are putting the Kroll corporate investigations division on the market.That Iron Mountain should acquire Mimosa looks like logical [...]

Source: "Shared" via Dominic in Google Reader | Editor

Toyota Litigation Also Accelerating With No Signs of Slowing Down Thursday, 11 March 2010

And we are off to the races…

From Amanda Bronstad in The National Law Journal:

Plaintiffs lawyers have been positioning themselves for a front seat in the mounting litigation arising from the sudden unintended acceleration problems in vehicles manufactured by Toyota.

Approximately 150 lawyers assembled on Friday at the InterContinental Chicago hotel to discuss sharing experts and legal strategies in the Toyota litigation, which now exceeds 80 lawsuits. Many of the lawyers have broken into camps based on which jurisdiction they believe should hear the multidistrict litigation against Toyota — and, perhaps more importantly, which judge should decide the cases.

One of the most popular districts under consideration is the Central District of California in Los Angeles, near the headquarters of Toyota Motor Sales USA Inc. Lawyers supporting this locale include products liability attorneys Mark Robinson Jr. and Richard McCune as well as Toyota’s lawyers, Cari Dawson and Lisa Gilford, both partners at Atlanta’s Alston & Bird. McClune was the first into court against Toyota.

Another group is advocating for Kentucky, where Toyota operates its largest manufacturing plant outside Japan. A third group is pushing for the Eastern District of Louisiana in New Orleans, which recently heard MDL proceedings involving Merck & Co. Inc.’s painkiller drug Vioxx.

The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has scheduled a hearing in the Toyota litigation on March 25.

“This is going to be like a feeding frenzy,” said Robinson, a partner at Robinson, Calcagnie & Robinson in Newport Beach, Calif., who filed a motion with the MDL panel on Feb. 26 to transfer the cases to Los Angeles…

Source: "Shared" via Dominic in Google Reader | Gabe Acevedo

Plaintiffs Lawyers Jockey for Venue in Massive Toyota Litigation Thursday, 11 March 2010

There is a good article in today’s National Law Journal about the positioning going on by plaintiffs lawyers in the mounting litigation arising from the “sudden unintended acceleration”  problems in vehicles manufactured by Toyota.  For the full article click here.   As we have reported, Toyota has since announced a plan to fix the problems. In the meantime, Congress has been holding hearings into whether Toyota knew about the problems earlier and whether the recalls are solving the problem (see our previous post by clicking here). 

Here is a summary of the article which includes some info from our other sources: 

1. The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) has scheduled a hearing in the Toyota litigation on March 25 in San Diego.
2. Some 100+ lawyers are expected to converge for the MDL hearing. The lawyers had until this past Monday (March 8^th) to ask the MDL panel for permission to speak during the hearing.
3. The purpose of the MDL hearing is to centralize all the litigation into one district for discovery, motions, depositions and so forth. 
4. One of the most popular districts under consideration is the Central District of California in Los Angeles, near the headquarters of Toyota Motor Sales USA Inc.   A number of products liability attorneys favor this location as well as Toyota’s lawyers, Alston & Bird.  
5. Besides its proximity to Toyota headquarters, the reason Toyota’s lawyers want all the cases transferred to the Central District of California is because that court is presiding over about a dozen cases against Toyota.  And the judge (Howard Matz) has experience handling MDL proceedings.
6. Another group is advocating for Kentucky, where Toyota operates its largest manufacturing plant outside Japan.
7. A third group is pushing for the Eastern District of Louisiana in New Orleans, which recently heard MDL proceedings involving Merck & Co. Inc.’s painkiller drug Vioxx.
8. Last Friday approximately 150 lawyers assembled at the InterContinental Chicago hotel to discuss sharing experts and legal strategies in the Toyota litigation, which now exceeds 80 lawsuits. Many of the lawyers have broken into camps based on which jurisdiction they believe should hear the multidistrict litigation against Toyota — and, perhaps more importantly, which judge should decide the cases.

Other points: 

-         Most of the suits assert fraud claims against Toyota on behalf of consumers seeking compensation for the loss in value of their vehicles. A smaller number of cases involve physical injury or death, although plaintiffs lawyers said that many more are in the pipeline.

-         The panel could decline to consolidate the cases or split the personal injury and wrongful death suits from the economic class actions.

As far as work for e-discovery vendors, staffing agencies and contractor attorneys — the work has begun.   There is a small contingent of contract attorneys working on various parts of the case in LA,  plus a contigent now in Japan.  As we indicated in previous posts, the Toyota litigation will follow the pattern of previous MDL cases that employed legions of contract attorneys on both the plaintiff and defendant sides such as the Bridgestone/Firestone tire case, the Vioxx cases, the asbestos cases, the bankruptcy cases, etc.

The article cited above lists a number of law firms involved.  We have been collecting the names of firms and we are also attending the MDL hearing on March 25th.   We shall publish a roster of firms involved in the case as soon as possible.  

Note:  there will be a large demand for Japanese fluent attorneys.   Any Toyota litigation project work we hear about will be posted to both the master foreign language list (to subscribe click here) as well as the Japanese language list (to subscribe click here). 

Source: "Shared" via Dominic in Google Reader | mrposse

ABA International Hosts “Lawyers without Rights” Wednesday, 10 March 2010

The 2010 Spring Meeting of the ABA International Law Committee will be held April 13-17 at the Grand Hyatt New York.

The meeting will feature the exhibition, “Lawyers Without Rights,” created by the German Federal Bar and made available for the first time in the United States. The exhibit features detailed and poignant accounts of the lives and fates of Jewish lawyers throughout Germany who suffered at the hands of the Nazi regime.

On April 14, the “Managing Partner Summit” will bring together leaders from 20 law firms from around the world to discuss shifting paradigms in the legal profession caused by the global economic crisis.

On April 16, experts from academia, and continue…

Source: "Shared" via Dominic in Google Reader | Mary Mack