Inspired by my recent post on the PRC ju...

With all the handwringing these days about the crafty Chinese taking trusting American businesses to the cleaners, isn't it nice to see that other US firms are stepping up to the plate to do their part for the balance of...

Putting melamine in milk seems a bit like eating peanuts or making Gao Zhisheng disappear; once you start, you just can't stop. I last blogged about this addiction in January; here's a news story showing that tainted milk is still...

Reader Richard Li offers a first-hand perspective on the September 2009 administration of the National Judicial Examination. I like the system of posting official answers and then giving consideration to dissenting views submitted by test-takers. Richard notes that there's no...

The Association of the Bar of the City of New York has recently issued a report of a visit its delegation made to Beijing and Shanghai in December, 2009. The report is available here. Nothing earthshaking, but it has a...

© Stas Kulesh The China Law Blog had a good piece recently on how the labor scene in China is changing. It's not really an in-depth analysis; it's more of a statement of the simple facts... A clear statement of the facts on labor in China seems necessary because China's labor scene really is changing. The stereotype of a huge Yellow Horde of cheap and abundant labor is still around as a stereotype - but it hasn't been true for a while now. ...

Apologies for the recent hiatus in blog posts. I've been quite busy working on a paper. I have neither forgotten nor given up on this blog, however. Please stay tuned.

Princeton, N.J., tax lawyer Robert Kenny says he's paying a steep price for taking on the Internal Revenue Service on behalf of clients: a retaliatory strike that has put his livelihood and his law license at risk. In a federal court suit, Kenny alleges that when he complained to the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration that an IRS agent was telling taxpayers to forgo representation, the IRS lodged a professional complaint against him.

The U.S. Supreme Court returns the week of Feb. 23 after a monthlong break to what may be potentially the term's most difficult and significant decisions affecting business, employees, the environment and civil rights. The high court's work thus far has produced no blockbusters, agree most Court watchers and litigators, but there have been important rulings in the areas of pre-emption -- increasingly a concern of business and consumers -- employment discrimination and criminal procedure.

Over the past several years, the government has dramatically increased its efforts to enforce the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. The number of enforcement actions brought annually by the Department of Justice and Securities and Exchange Commission, which both enforce the statute, has ballooned from an average of two to four in the first 20 years of the statute's existence to more than 30 in both 2007 and 2008. Officials have stated publicly that enforcement efforts will remain active for the foreseeable future, acknowledging that there are approximately 100 cases currently under investigation. With that in mind, it is worthwhile to look at the statute and some of the key trends that are likely to play a prominent role in 2009's enforcement environment.

A federal judge in the Southern District of New York threw out two derivative shareholders lawsuits against Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc. executives and directors and ruled that Bank of America Corp.'s acquisition of Merrill strips Merrill's shareholders of the standing to bring such suits. U.S. District Judge Jed S. Rakoff applied the so-called "continuing ownership rule," applied by Delaware and federal courts, which requires shareholders to own stock in a public company to bring derivative suits on behalf of that company.

A First U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel reversed an earlier appellate ruling and ordered office supply company Staples Inc. to stand trial for defamation for its mass e-mail detailing why it fired a particular employee. The plaintiff does not claim that the e-mail was false, but rather relies on a century-old state law that permits a cause of action for a defamatory true statement published with malicious intent.

Where Bankruptcy Appellate Panel reversed bankruptcy court's grant of summary judgment on debtor's motion to discharge debt, and further remanded adversary action for trial, order was non-final and thus fell outside jurisdiction of court of appeals.

In both Chapter 11 and Chapter 7 proceedings, creditors may be granted derivative standing to bring action pursuant to §§ 544(b) and 550(a) on behalf of bankruptcy estate for avoidance of fraudulent or preferential transfers (confirming continued vitality of practice after Hartford Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Union Planters Bank, N.A., 530 U.S. 1 (2000); bankruptcy appellate-standing doctrine does not apply to second layer of appeal, from district court to court of appeals, where party who appealed bankruptcy court order to district court had appellate standing; instead, general rule applies, namely that party must be aggrieved by judicial action from which party appeals.

Money management firm's administrators did not aid and abet ongoing securities fraud by signing audit certifications, one year or more after uncharged primary federal securities violations, denying knowledge of any errors or illegal acts that may have affected clients; denials may have been wrongful, but such wrongs were not "aiding and abetting" ongoing securities fraud merely due to some other fiduciary duty to disclose.