Thursday, October 2, 2014

Say What?! – Did I Really Hear That?

Originally published by .


From Frank Douglass of Austin (Scott, Douglass, etc), these excerpts from the deposition “given by a Ph.D in accounting” in an arbitration proceeding. The dispute concerned this paragraph in the contract between the parties:


“13. Operating Overhead. To compensate X for overhead costs incurred in the operation of the Plant, X shall charge the Plant Account an amount equal to 15 percent of the total operation and maintenance expense of the plant, including insurance, taxes, plant shrinkage costs, which compensation shall be in lieu of the salaries and expense of X’s principal business office, division offices and district offices.”


On direct examination, the “expert” testified that the intent of the parties was “fuzzy.” On cross, Frank asked the witness “point out the fuzzy words” – and, with Frank’s help, new dimensions of fuzziness were established.


A. Okay, “operating overhead,” “overhead” is fuzzy; “to compensate” … I don’t quite know what that means. “Incurred in the operation of the plant” is not clear.


Q. You skipped a few there. “To compensate X for the overhead costs.” … The second overhead is fuzzy, too?


A. “Overhead,” wherever it occurs …


Q. How about “operating,” that is okay?


A. “Operating” is all right. … And the two of them together (“operating” and “overhead”) are less fuzzy than “overhead” by itself.


Q. That improved the fuzziness of “overhead,” to put “operating” in front of it?


A. It would make it less fuzzy, yes, sir.


[The witness then testifies that "to compensate," "overhead costs" and "incurred in the operation of the plant" are all fuzzy].


Q. All right. [Any] fuzzy words in [the next phrase]? …


A. Medium fuzzy, but not nearly like the others that we have talked about.


Q. The whole phrase is medium fuzzy?


A. Yes. But I’d put it on the lower – that one is reasonably concrete to me.


***


Q. All right. Continue …


A. And the final phrase, “of X’s principal business office, division offices and district offices,” is, for me, somewhat open to interpretation.


Q. Semi fuzzy?


A. Semi fuzzy.


Q. Let me ask you about the [next phrase]. “Rates” fuzzy? “In practice” is fuzzy?


A. Oh, yes, very definitely.


Q. Maximum fuzz?


A. Maximum fuzzy, yes, sir.


Curated by Texas Bar Today. Follow us on Twitter @texasbartoday.






from Texas Bar Today http://saywhat.texasbar.com/2014/10/july-1990-did-i-really-hear-that.html

via Abogado Aly Website

EEOC Finds Evidence of Discrimination at City of San Antonio

Originally published by .



Well, I guess it is going to snow this coming July, or at least in March. The EEOC has found in favor of an employee. They have found evidence of discrimination. Finding in favor of the employee may not be as rare as snow in July, but it does approach the rarity of snow in March. Two employees of the Animal Care Services for the City of San Antonio filed claims saying they were paid less than male workers who preformed the same work.


Christine Peden and Jeanne Martinez filed claims based on the Equal Pay Act. The City responded that the salaries were based on a variety of factors. It said raises were limited to to 5% and that new hires would only receive minimum wage. But, later they admitted that on occasion, the City would make an exception. The City did make an exception for one male manager. The EEOC found that change in its response to amount to pretext. Even worse, the City disciplined the two women for discussing wages. They were counseled in writing for spreading “rumors, gossip” and helping create dissension. See San Antonio Express News report here (account required).


The thing about wage issues is workers cannot know what others make without engaging in some form of “gossip.” So, disciplining workers for engaging in such discussions is prohibited by a few statutes. It was exceedingly unwise for the manager to discipline them for discussing wage issues.


Equal Pay Act claims are notoriously difficult. See one of my prior posts about the EPA here. But, it looks like the City made a difficult case much easier for these two women.



Curated by Texas Bar Today. Follow us on Twitter @texasbartoday.






from Texas Bar Today http://ift.tt/1x2Xg40

via Abogado Aly Website

Jennifer M. Pacella – Advocate or Adversary? When Attorneys Act as Whistleblowers

Originally published by .


Article. Abstract: In today’s era of relying on whistleblower tips as critical sources of fraud disclosure, the role of attorneys as whistleblowers has become increasingly muddled. The Securities and Exchange Commission has adopted rules under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform…


Curated by Texas Bar Today. Follow us on Twitter @texasbartoday.






from Texas Bar Today http://ift.tt/1E4lD6m

via Abogado Aly Website

Wednesday, October 1, 2014

Northern District of Texas Orders Patent Royalty Dispute to Arbitration

Originally published by .


1920576575_a8e7b37768_b

The Northern District of Texas in Dallas has ordered a patent royalty dispute to arbitration. In Sazy v. DePuy Spine, LLC , No. 3:13-CV-4379-L (N. D. Tex., Sept. 18, 2014), a Texas physician entered into a Product Development Agreement (“PDA”) with several related corporations (“DePuy”) in early 2002. The agreement contained a Supplementary Agreement that outlined the circumstances under which the doctor could earn royalties if the proposed surgical mesh product became sold commercially. The PDA also contained an agreement to arbitrate any disputes “arising out of or relating to” the contract. About one year after the parties executed the PDA, the physician began to receive royalties for the mesh product.


In 2003, the parties executed an amendment to the PDA after DePuy developed a related product. The amendment provided the doctor with reduced royalties for five years and changed the definition of the term “patent” in the agreement. Despite this, the physician received the higher royalty rate included in the original PDA until January 2011. In September 2013, the doctor filed a lawsuit alleging breach of contract and other claims against DePuy in a Texas state court. The corporation removed the case to federal court before filing a motion to stay the proceedings and compel the parties’ dispute to arbitration.


After finding that a valid agreement to arbitrate existed, the Northern District of Texas examined the physician’s claim that the arbitral provision should not be enforced because he was fraudulently induced into signing it. According to the court, the doctor’s argument attacked “the validity of the entire agreement, constituting the PDA, and therefore is not a valid basis for foreclosing arbitration.” In addition, the court stated,



Further, the plain language of the arbitration provision of the PDA provides that a claim of “inducement” is subject to arbitration. PDA § 19, App. 12. By the plain language of the provision, any claims relating to the inducement of the agreement, such as Plaintiff’s claim of fraudulent inducement, are subject to arbitration. Since no legal restraints external to the 2002 PDA foreclose arbitration of Plaintiff’s claims, he is required to submit his claims to arbitration.



Next, the federal court addressed DePuy’s motion to stay the court proceedings and compel arbitration. The Northern District of Texas denied the corporation’s motion to stay the case by stating,



… When a court determines that all claims of a lawsuit are subject to arbitration, dismissal of the action with prejudice is appropriate and within the court’s discretion. Alford v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 975 F.2d 1161, 1164 (5th Cir. 1992) (citations omitted). The reason for dismissal with prejudice is that retaining jurisdiction of the action by the district court serves no purpose because any remedies after arbitration are limited to judicial review based on the grounds set forth in the Federal Arbitration Act. Id. (citation omitted). The court determines that all of Plaintiff’s claims are arbitrable and will dismiss this action with prejudice.



Because a valid agreement to arbitrate existed and all of the doctor’s claims were subject to arbitration, the Northern District of Texas denied the defendants’ motion to stay litigation, dismissed the case with prejudice, and ordered the parties’ dispute to arbitration.


Photo credit: timsamoff / Foter / CC BY-ND


Curated by Texas Bar Today. Follow us on Twitter @texasbartoday.






from Texas Bar Today http://ift.tt/1oASNR9

via Abogado Aly Website

Say What?! – Objections Sustained!!

Originally published by .


From W. Bernard Whitney of Fort Worth, two trial excerpts involving objections. The first is from a plea in an abatement hearing before Judge H.M. Lattimore (who is now on the Fort Worth Court of Appeals):


Q. You transacted this business for her because she did not seem to have any capacity for it; is that correct, sir?


A. She just could not absorb it and she needed the money. Her husband is crippled.


Q. And that was the purpose in your dealings in all of these things that have her name on them; is that correct?


A. That’s right, and Mr. May said that was fine.


Defense Attorney: Your Honor, I object to that last comment. Whatever Mr. May said is hearsay. Further, it is non-responsive to the question.


The Court: Yes, that is not a proper response.


Defense Attorney: I move that the testimony about Mr. May’s comment be stricken.


The Court: What do you want me to do?


Defense Attorney: I am no sure I understand your question.


The Court: I can’t take it out of the record. It is there forever. I will try not to remember it and instruct myself accordingly.


Defense Attorney: Thank you.

_____


Bernard’s second excerpt is from the trial transcript in a case he was asked to handle on appeal:


Q. All right. You have admitted to kissing Joanie Elliston on Christmas Eve of 1982; is that right?


A. I admit to giving her a little buss.


Q. A little what?


A. Buss.


Q. All right. What is a buss?


A. It’s just like a little peck on the cheek.


Q. A meaningless asexual kiss? Is that a meaningless asexual kiss?


A. Well, it’s not a sexual kiss at all. All kisses don’t have to be sexual. This was just a little buss on the lips which -


Q. Okay. But using Mr. Curry as a model for Joanie, would you show the jury how that kiss was done?


A. I beg your pardon?


Mr. Curry: I don’t believe we need to use me – Your Honor, what is all this? I’ve never heard anything like this before. Certainly I’m not going to kiss the witness.


The Court: Is that an objection?


Mr. Curry: Yes, it’s an objection.


The Court: I’ll sustain the objection.


Mr. Curry: I can’t believe this.


Curated by Texas Bar Today. Follow us on Twitter @texasbartoday.






from Texas Bar Today http://ift.tt/1qWqL22

via Abogado Aly Website

The Conflict of Interest Inherent in a Corporation Paying for its Employee’s Counsel …

Originally published by .


Article. Abstract: Although the U.S. Supreme Court as far back as the 1981 case of Wood v. Georgia identified the inherent conflict of interest that exists when an employer controls its employee’s counsel, until now, no uniform solution has existed…


Curated by Texas Bar Today. Follow us on Twitter @texasbartoday.






from Texas Bar Today http://ift.tt/1rIo2hN

via Abogado Aly Website

Creation of Yosemite and Putting Compliance at the Center of Strategy

Originally published by .


Yosemite On this day in 1890, an act of Congress created Yosemite National Park, home of such natural wonders as Half Dome and the giant sequoia trees. Environmental trailblazer John Muir (1838-1914) and his colleagues campaigned for the congressional action, which was signed into law by President Benjamin Harrison.


In 1889, John Muir discovered that the vast meadows surrounding Yosemite Valley, which lacked government protection, were being overrun and destroyed by domestic sheep grazing. Muir and Robert Underwood Johnson, a fellow environmentalist and influential magazine editor, lobbied for national park status for the large wilderness area around Yosemite Valley. With this persuasion, Congress set aside over 1,500 square miles of land for what would become Yosemite National Park, America’s third national park. In 1906, the state-controlled Yosemite Valley and Mariposa Grove came under federal jurisdiction with the rest of the park to create the Yosemite that we know today. It clearly was a triumph for Muir and Johnson but more so for the American people.


I recently read an article in the Harvard Business Review (HBR) that seemed to draw inspiration from the actions of Muir and Johnson. The article by Frank Cespedes, entitled “Putting Sales at the Center of Strategy ”, discussed how to connect up management’s new sales plans with the “field realities your salespeople face.” Referencing the well-known Sam Waltonism that “There ain’t many customers at headquarters”; Cespedes believes that “If you and your team can’t make the crucial connections between strategy and sales, then no matter how much you invest in social media or worry about disruptive innovations, you may end up pressing for better execution when you actually need a better strategy or changing strategic direction when you should be focusing on the basics in the field.”


The problem is usually clear. Senior management and the C-Suite make clear their commitment to doing business ethically and in compliance with anti-corruption laws such as the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA). The company even has a best practices compliance. But the problem is that the installation or enhancement of a compliance regime is usually perceived as a ‘top-down’ exercise. The reality of the employee base that must execute the compliance strategy is not considered. Even when there are comments, it is derisively characterized as ‘push-back’ and not taken into account in moving the compliance effort forward. I thought Cespedes piece had some great insights for the compliance practitioner so borrowing from his four-point process, I will rework it for a compliance professional.


Communicate the Strategy


It can be difficult for an employee base to implement a strategy that they do not understand. Even with a company wide training rollout, followed by “a string of e-mails from headquarters and periodic reports back on results. There are too few communications, and most are one-way; the root causes of underperformance are often hidden from both groups.” Here Cespedes’ insight is that clarification is a leadership responsibility and in the compliance function that means the Chief Compliance Officer (CCO) or other senior compliance practitioner. Moreover, if the problem is that employees do not understand how to function within the parameters of the compliance program, then there is a training problem and that is the fault of the compliance department. I once was subjected to a PowerPoint of 268 slides, which lasted 7.5 hours, about my company’s compliance regime. To say this was worse than useless was accurate. The business guys were all generally asleep one hour into the presentation as we went through the intricacies of the books and records citations to the FCPA. The training was a failure but it was not the fault of the attendees. If your own employees do not understand your compliance program that is your fault.


Continually improve your compliance productivity


I thought this point was insightful. Cespedes talked about incentivizing your sales force. Why not do the same concepts around compliance? You can work with your Human Resources (HR) department to come up with appropriate financial incentives. Many companies have ad hoc financial awards, which they present to employees to celebrate and honor outstanding efforts. Why not give out something like that around doing business in compliance? Does your company have, as a component of its bonus compensation plan, a part dedicated to FCPA compliance and ethics? If so, how is this component measured and then administered? There is very little in the corporate world that an employee notices more than what goes into the calculation of their bonuses. HR can, and should, facilitate this process by setting expectations early in the year and then following through when annual bonuses are released. With the assistance of HR, such a bonus can send a powerful message to employees regarding the seriousness with which compliance is taken at the company. There is nothing like putting your money where your mouth is for people to stand up and take notice.


Improve the human element in your compliance program


This is another area where HR can help the compliance program. More than ongoing assessment of employees for promotion into leadership positions, here HR can assist on the ground floor. HR can take the lead in asking questions around compliance and ethics in the interview process. Studies have suggested that certainly Gen Y & Xers appreciate such inquiries and want to work for companies that make such business ethics a part of the discussion. By having the discussion during the interview process, you can not only set expectations but you can also begin the training process on compliance.


However, this approach should not end when an employee is hired. HR can also assist your compliance efforts by tracking employees through their company career to identify those who perform high in any compliance metric. This can also facilitate the delivery on more focused compliance training to those who may need it because of changes on FCPA risk during their careers.


Make your compliance strategy relevant


Cespedes notes, “Most C-suite executives know these value-creation levers, but too few understand and operationalize the sales factors that affect them.” In the sales world this can translate into a reduction in assets to underperforming activities. This is all well and good but such actions must be coupled with an understanding of why sales might be underperforming in certain areas. In the compliance realm, I think this translates into two concepts, ongoing monitoring and risk assessment. Ongoing monitoring can allow you to move from a simple prevent mode to a more prescriptive mode; where you can uncover violations of your company’s compliance program before they become full blown FCPA violations. By using a risk assessment, you can take the temperature of where and how your company is doing business and determine if new products or service offerings increase your compliance risks.


Above all, you need to get out and tell the compliance story. Louis D’Amrosio was quoted for the following, “You have to repeat something at least 10 times for an organization to fully internalize it.” If there is a disconnect between your compliance strategy and how your employee base is implementing or even interpreting that strategy, get out of the office and go out to the field. But you need to do more that simply talk you also need to listen. By doing so, can help to align your company’s compliance strategy with both the delivery and in the field.


This publication contains general information only and is based on the experiences and research of the author. The author is not, by means of this publication, rendering business, legal advice, or other professional advice or services. This publication is not a substitute for such legal advice or services, nor should it be used as a basis for any decision or action that may affect your business. Before making any decision or taking any action that may affect your business, you should consult a qualified legal advisor. The author, his affiliates, and related entities shall not be responsible for any loss sustained by any person or entity that relies on this publication. The Author gives his permission to link, post, distribute, or reference this article for any lawful purpose, provided attribution is made to the author. The author can be reached at tfox@tfoxlaw.com.


© Thomas R. Fox, 2014


Filed under: Best Practices, Compliance, Compliance and Ethics, compliance programs, Department of Justice, FCPA, Harvard Business Review, Human Resources Tagged: best practices, compliance, compliance programs, ethical leadership, ethics and compliance, FCPA, HBR, HR


Curated by Texas Bar Today. Follow us on Twitter @texasbartoday.






from Texas Bar Today http://ift.tt/1rIo3lJ

via Abogado Aly Website