From NPR News:

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke told a panel investigating the financial crisis that regulators must be ready to shutter the largest institutions if they threaten to bring down the financial system.

Bernanke is presenting his analysis of the crisis and views on potential systemwide risks as the panel approaches the end of its yearlong investigation into the Wall Street meltdown.

The Fed chief said bailing out these institutions is not a healthy solution and that great improvement will come from the new financial overhaul law. It empowers regulators to shut down firms whose collapse pose a broader threat to the system.

"Too-big-to-fail financial institutions were both a source ... of the crisis and among the primary impediments to policymakers' efforts to contain it," Bernanke told the bipartisan panel.

"We should not imagine ... that it is possible to prevent all crises," he said. "To achieve both sustained growth and stability, we need to provide a framework which promotes the appropriate mix of prudence, risk-taking and innovation in our financial system."

You can read the testimony of Chairman Bernanke here on the Federal Reserve website.

You can read the full article here on the NPR Website.

Bernanke photo is from TopNews.

The idea of employers collecting or using genetic information for employment decisions—remember the movie Gattaca—seems more like a far-fetched science fiction story than an actual business practice today. Indeed, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) was passed primarily to prevent genetic information discrimination before it had taken firm hold in the workplace.

GINA only became effective on November 21, 2009, but as of April of this year, 80 charges of discrimination had already been filed under the new law with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). One charge in particular made national media attention when an employee in Connecticut was terminated after disclosing to her employer that she had tested positive for the BRAC-2 gene, which can increase one’s risk for breast cancer. These charges beg the question: If genetic information discrimination is perceived to be merely science fiction, why are so many claims being filed?

One answer may be the shear breadth of protection afforded by GINA. The act applies to employers with 15 or more employees, and prevents an employer from requesting, requiring or purchasing the following information: (1) genetic tests of an employee or family member, (2) manifestation of a disease or disorder in a family member, (3) any request for or receipt of genetic services by an employee or family member, or (4) participation in genetic research by an employee or family member. A family member includes a dependent of an employee or a first- to fourth-degree relative of the employee or dependant; genetic information of a fetus or embryo is also protected. Certain uses and disclosures of genetic information by an employer, however obtained, are also prohibited.

GINA provides limited exceptions for employers who acquire genetic information, but even seemingly innocuous inquiries or mistaken beliefs by unwary employers can lead to potential violations. Employers who inquire regarding an employee’s health or continue to follow typical business practices of collecting medical information to comply with other policies can unwittingly violate GINA.

For instance, one exception allows an employer to obtain genetic information to comply with the certification provisions of the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (FMLA) (or leave under similar state or local laws). The FMLA allows employers to require an employee submit certification by a health care provider to document that the employee qualifies for leave under the act. An employer who obtains genetic information regarding an employee, however, only to later learn that the employee was ineligible for FMLA leave may not be entitled to this exception.
GINA provides another exception for genetic information “inadvertently” requested or required by an employer. Interpretive regulations proposed by the EEOC as to this exception would allow an employee to provide genetic information to support (1) a request for leave not governed by law, or (2) a request for accommodation under disability discrimination laws. These regulations do not, however, address the scope of the inquiries which may be made by an employer in such regard. An employer can conceivably violate GINA, therefore, simply by adhering to established, but overly broad, policies requiring medical verification to support a request for leave or reasonable accommodation.

The proposed EEOC regulations would also apply to “water cooler” conversations where a supervisor overhears co-workers discussing an employee’s genetic information, or where an employee proffers protected information in response to a benign question, such as “how are you feeling today?” However, if the supervisor joined the co-workers’ conversation or asked the employee for further information, the acquisition of genetic information may no longer be inadvertent and could be a violation of GINA.

Even where acquired through a lawful inquiry or voluntary disclosure, genetic information can still haunt an employer. An employer may violate GINA if the genetic information is not properly maintained. The act requires that protected information be kept on separate forms and in separate medical files; genetic information may not be maintained as part of an employee’s personnel file.

Lawfully acquired genetic information can also form the basis of a charge of discrimination. GINA forbids an employer from using such information as a basis for an employment decision. As with the Connecticut employer described earlier in this article, an employer’s knowledge of genetic information followed shortly by an adverse employment decision can itself prompt an EEOC charge. As with any new employment law, there is going to be a learning curve for unwary employers under GINA. As EEOC charge statistics already show, time is not on their side.

This article originally appeared in Headnotes, September 2010, p. 17. It was jointly authored with Lindsay McNutt.

Robert G. Chadwick is a shareholder in the law firm of Campbell & Chadwick, P.C. He is Board Cerfied in Labor And Employment Law by the Texas Board Of Legal Specialization. He represents clients in a variety of Labor & Employment. Mr. Chadwick may be reached by email or at 972-277-8585. Read more Labor & Employment Law articles.

From our friends at Chubb and Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP comes a report on how employers can help reduce the threat of fiduciary liability lawsuits.

Plan sponsors and fiduciaries face more risk today then ever before—especially in an environment where employers are likely to reduce staff or employee benefits. Employees who still have jobs may not be inclined to “rock the boat,” but those who find themselves overboard are more likely to take legal action against employers, especially if their 401(k) plans sustained losses before they were terminated.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in LaRue v. DeWolff and regulatory changes have also helped empower individual plan participants to bring actions for losses to their own accounts, paving the way for other claims against the fiduciaries.

The repor includes measures firms may take to help reduce the risk of a fiduciary lawsuit, including:

*delegate fiduciary functions to committees with members who have the expertise and time to properly perform their duties;

*establish programs to train fiduciaries on their responsibilities;

*ensure the plan's fiduciary structure and documents do not conflict with plan practices;

*review fees and expenses at least annually to make sure the plan is not charged for costs that should be allocated to the plan sponsor; and

*accurately document all meeting conversations and decisions and recommendations made by outside service providers. 

You can read the full report, “Who May Sue You and Why: How to Reduce Your ERISA Risks and the Role of Fiduciary Liability Insurance,” by following the highlighted link.

According to reports by the Society for Human Resources Management, (a) 60% of U.S. employers run credit checks on applicants for employment; and (b) more than 80% of U.S. employers conduct criminal background checks on applicants. The concerns which prompt such inquiries are generally legitimate and include safety, security, loyalty, integrity and avoidance of negligent hiring suits.

A backlash is brewing, however, against background checks and hiring decisions based upon credit history and criminal conviction records. Governor Quinn of Illinois recently said: “A job seeker’s ability to earn a decent living should not depend on how well they are weathering the greatest economic recession since the 1930’s.” One of the stated goals of President Obama's crime and law enforcement agenda is to break down employment barriers for people who have a prior criminal record, but who have stayed clean of further involvement with the criminal justice system.

In 2010 alone, three states were added to the list of states with laws regulating background checks by employers.  Although these laws do not affect existing federal or state laws which require background checks, they do substantially narrow the circumstances under which an employer can legally obtain or use background information regarding an applicant for employment.

Federal Law: For now, the federal law protecting applicants remains unchanged.

Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”): This Act mandates certain procedures which employers must follow in obtaining and using credit reports from outside agencies, but does not prohibit employers from using such reports in employment decisions.

Discrimination Laws: Under certain circumstances, hiring standards which disqualify applicants based upon credit history or criminal record can have a disproportionate impact on protected minorities.

Bankruptcy Code: There is a split of authority as to whether the prohibition of discrimination against employees who file for bankruptcy extends to applicants for employment.

Credit History or Report: On August 11, 2010, Illinois became the fourth state to pass a law protecting applicants with poor credit histories:

Illinois: Effective January 1, 2011, except under limited circumstances, an employer may not (a) inquire about an applicant’s credit history or obtain a copy of his credit report, or (b) use an applicant’s credit history in hiring.

Hawaii:  Except under limited circumstances, an employer may not refuse to hire an applicant because of his credit history or credit report.  Even if permitted, an employer may inquire about credit history only after extending a conditional offer of employment.

Oregon: Under a new law passed on March 29, 2010, an employer may not obtain or use for employment purposes information in the credit history of an applicant.  Exceptions include the circumstance where the information is “substantially job related.”

Washington:  An employer may not procure a credit report for employment purposes unless the information is “substantially job related.”  

Criminal Conviction Records:  On August 6, 2010, Massachusetts became the sixth state to pass a law protecting job applicants with criminal conviction records:

Massachusetts: Effective November 4, 2010, an employer cannot inquire on an “initial written application form” about an applicant’s “criminal offender record information” which includes information about criminal charges, arrests, and incarceration.  An employer may access and use the Commonwealth’s Criminal Offender Record Information database which has purged older conviction data.

Hawaii:  Employers may inquire about criminal records only after they have extended a conditional offer of employment. An employer may consider a conviction in a hiring decision only if it (a) occurred within the past ten years, and (b) is rationally related to the employment.

Kansas:  An employer may not be liable for a decision to employ based upon a person’s criminal history “provided the information that led to the employment … decision reasonably bears upon the … applicant’s or employee’s trustworthiness, or the safety or well-being of the employer’s employees or customers.”

New York: Employers with 10 or more employees may not deny employment to an applicant because of his conviction record unless (a) there is a direct relationship between the offense and the job sought, or (b) hiring would create an unreasonable risk to property or to public or individual safety.

Pennsylvania:  Criminal conviction records may be considered by an employer in a hiring decision “only to the extent to which they relate to the applicant’s suitability for employment in the position for which he has applied.”

Wisconsin:   An employer may only refuse to hire a qualified applicant because of a criminal conviction for an offense that is substantially related to the circumstances of a particular job.

Keep An Eye On: Currently before Congress is H.R. 3149, a bill which would amend the FCRA to bar the use of consumer credit checks against prospective and current employees for the purpose of making adverse employment decisions.

According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, as of July 2010, bills addressing the use of credit history in employment are pending in 15 states and the District of Columbia.  There are no pending bills addressing criminal background checks.

QUESTIONS

Questions regarding background checks of prospective employees can be directed to Robert G. Chadwick, Jr. at Campbell & Chadwick, P.C.

Download a copy of this article: "New State Laws Protect Applicants with Poor Credit History or Criminal Reocrds," Labor & Employment Law Update, September 2010.

Read more Labor & Employment Law articles by Robert G. Chadwick, Jr.

Robert G. Chadwick is a shareholder in the law firm of Campbell & Chadwick, P.C. He is Board Cerfied in Labor And Employment Law by the Texas Board Of Legal Specialization. He represents clients in a variety of Labor & Employment. Mr. Chadwick may be reached by email or at 972-277-8585.

In New York, an experimental system allows "judge-directed negotiation" and not juries to settle cases.  An excerpt from the article:

Under the program pioneered by Judge McKeon and the New York City Health and Hospitals Corp. in 1995, and formalized a dozen years later, all medical malpractice cases are heard by a set of judges with acknowledged expertise in both medicine and negotiating skills. The goal is to guide parties to a settlement, thus avoiding trial. Though plaintiffs can still select a jury trial, only 5% of HHC's Bronx cases are now settled via trial, as are about 15% in the other boroughs, he says.

In the girl's case, after five intense sessions in the judge's chambers, both sides agreed in 2008 to settle the case for $6.8 million, significantly less than the girl might have gotten at trial, but enough to make her future secure. It also let her lawyer, Ernest Steigman, devise a structured settlement that guaranteed lifelong payments, including money for college, something he says could not have happened with a jury verdict.

“Everyone went away happy,” says Judge McKeon.

Inspired by such successes, last month the federal government gave the New York State Department of Health and the state court system a $3 million, three-year grant to expand the mediation program from HHC's 11 acute care hospitals to five private hospitals in New York as well.

Read the full story here on the Crain's New York website.

The boom in smartphones has some of the largest tech giants and healthcare companies looking at the potential for mobile health care services.

In an interesting article from Businessweek, the world of medicine becomes as mobile as your smartphone.  From the article:

Best Buy, the leading U.S. consumer electronics retailer, is also jumping in. Following months of testing, the company will soon begin selling wireless-enabled health and fitness devices in more than half of its 1,089 U.S. stores, Kurt Hulander, a Best Buy senior director, says in an interview. "It's a potential growth area for us," Hulander says. The retailer already offers treadmills and regular blood-pressure monitors online. While its product lineup hasn't been finalized, Best Buy may carry blood-pressure monitors, pedometers, and fitness watches that wirelessly transmit readings taken at home to a website such as Microsoft's HealthVault, which stores electronic health records that can be shared with a physician, Hulander says. "A lot of things traditionally done in the doctor's office might soon be done at home," he says.

You can read the full article here on the BusinessWeek website.

From the Associated Press comes a lawsuit in the educator liability field:

The family of a 16-year-old girl who committed suicide is suing her Ohio school, accusing officials of failing to stop relentless bullying by classmates prior to her death.

The lawsuit says Sladjana Vidovic  was verbally harassed and on one occasion pushed down a set of stairs at Mentor High School, about 20 miles northeast of Cleveland.

The family's attorney, Kenneth Myers, says Vidovic, whose parents are from Croatia, was teased about her heritage and accent. He said Vidovic became depressed over the bullying and hanged herself from her bedroom window on Oct. 2, 2008.

The lawsuit filed Thursday in U.S. District Court seeks unspecified damages.

School superintendent Jacqueline Hoynes says the district will vigorously defend itself against the allegations.

Read the full story here on the Yahoo!News website.

Richard Bortnick, Stephanie Gantman and our friends over at the cyberINQUIRER blog have posted an article that taps into numerous emotions as they relate to spyware, computer failure and coverage.

I thought the conclusion was a great summary for anyone working in the cyber arena:

"While there are contrary decisions as to the existence of “property damage” under a CGL policy in the context of third-party cyber claims, Eyeblaster demonstrates the importance of a well-crafted insurance policy, particularly in our evolving technological age.  It is axiomatic that courts are protective of policyholders, many reaching to find coverage where none was intended to exist or was never contemplated.  Needless to say, it is incumbent on insurers to continually review and refine their CGL, E&O and other policy wordings to ensure that they clearly and unambiguously cover only those claims and losses for which coverage is intended, and preclude coverage for those matters for which it is not, whether by way of a policy’s insuring agreement, exclusions, conditions or otherwise.  At a minimum, CGL underwriters should review and, as appropriate, refine their policies’ definitions of “property damage” and exclusions.  In turn, E&O underwriters must carefully define “wrongful act” as it relates to intended and unintended acts and results, and pay close attention to their policies’ exclusions to ensure that the coverage limitations are properly articulated.  At the same time, it has become increasingly important for underwriters and claims professionals to closely monitor and stay on top of developing case law trends and state and federal legislation in order to: (1) understand the ways in which new technologies may implicate coverage, and (2) prudently craft their wordings and policies to provide coverage only for those risks for which premiums have been paid."

You can read the full article here on the CyberINQUIRER website.

Click here if you are unable to view the above graphic and want to learn more about or register for the PLUS Foundation Chips for Charity event.

AmWINS sponsored its 8th annual "Day at the Races" at Monmouth Park racetrack in Oceanport, NJ on Friday, August 6th.  Holding true to form, it was another rousing success. 

Guests of AmWINS, including retailer insurance brokers, underwriters and PLUS bloggers (well, one anyway...), had a terrific time while taking advantage of networking opportunities. 

Here are some photos from the day's proceedings:

Courtney Burns and Sally Gregor of Everest National flank Andrew Pritchard of AmWINS NJ, one of the industry's leading wholesalers for asset management companies.  He's also the one who invited LG to this event, thus, no insulting caption here...

George "Bud" Pierce (Great American), Dave Garrison (Great American), Lisa Ledo (CNA) and Andrew Pritchard (AmWINS) are all smiles before the betting begins.  Actually, the beer was flowing freely and everyone was pretty much all smiles the entire day...

AmWINS broker Dan O'Connor, a very talented and hard-working guy who LG trusted to personally handle the insurance for his book (still available, by the way, at www.sixthandspringbooks.com under "New Releases"...), smiles widely after cashing a winning exacta ticket for $45,649.50 after a 99 to 1 shot won the race. 

Ah, not really, he was just happy to be out of the office. 

A view of the Monmouth Park grandstand just to give a flavor of the place.  The guy in the brown shirt in the foreground does not work in the insurance industry but, no doubt, wishes he did.  Little did he know that he'd be appearing on an internationally-known blog. 

Here we see the horses thundering down the homestretch at "The Shore's Greatest Stretch" as Monmouth Park calls itself.  Not pictured: the horse LG bet on, which is still somewhere back by the starting gate scratching himself. 

Reza Khan, one of AWAC's top business development specialists, is clearly focused on serving clients and creating new customer solutions while puffing a big phat stogie.  The standard AmWINS event wristband was blue, but Reza requested pink because he felt it complimented his eyes (he deserved that jab for not sharing his winning trifecta picks with LG in the 6th.)  It's too bad that Reza is always thinking business and can't just relax and have some fun.

Sally Gregor (still with Everest National) and J.P. Scanlon (The Hartford) yuk it up trackside.  Sally was heard saying that she never gambles with her own money, only her employer's.  J.P., a true company man, was thoroughly impressed by the thoroughbreds, but said he thought that The Hartford's Stag could outrun any of them.

Each discarded ticket represents a broken dream; a flat-screen TV not purchased, a utility bill not paid, a tuition payment not made (OK, maybe we're over-dramatizing here, but stay with us...)  

The racetrack: The only place where the windows clean the people!

The only sure bet is reading the PLUS Blog for educational and fun postings, and attending PLUS conferences for more knowledge and networking. 

Thanks again to the people of AmWINS for hosting another great event that provided a terrific forum for industry networking.  Now only if they'd supply some hot tips next year...

On July 24, 2010, Kennedy Pola was hired as the new offensive coordinator for the University of Southern California’s football team. Pola had been the running back’s coach for the NFL’s Tennessee Titans. Two days later, the Titans sued USC and its head football coach, Lane Kiffin, for treble and punitive damages and attorney’s fees.

So what did USC do to invite a lawsuit?  After all, the school did not have a contract with the NFL or the Titans which precluded it from hiring Pola.   

The answer lies in the contract which Pola signed with the Titans.  The contract was for a one-year “Term” and included the following restriction: 

You agree that You will not under any circumstance solicit discussions or entertain employment with any other person or entity during the Term unless You are granted permission to do so by Titans or by the [NFL] Commissioner in accordance with NFL Rules. 

The suit alleges that USC and Kiffin knowingly induced Pola to breach this restriction and thereby tortiously interfered with the contract in violation of Tennessee law.  While the merits of this claim have yet to be tested, employers should heed its valuable lesson – inducing an employee to breach a contract with an employer can have expensive consequences.

TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACT: One count of the Titans lawsuit against USC alleges tortious interference with contract.  Most states have recognized some version of this common law tort. In an employee-raiding case, the elements of the tort generally entail the following:

1. A valid contractual obligation existed between an employer and an employee;
2. The prospective employer knew of the existence of the contractual obligation;
3. The prospective employer intentionally (or maliciously) interfered with the contract by inducing the employee to breach the contractual obligation;
4. The prospective employer’s interference caused the employee to breach the contractual obligation; and
5. The original employer suffered harm.

Most states allow the recovery of consequential damages caused by the tort as well as punitive damages.
  
STATUTORY TORT: Another count of the Titan’s lawsuit against the Trojans seeks relief under the Tennessee Code, which provides:

It is unlawful for any person, by inducement, persuasion, misrepresentation, or other means, to induce or procure the breach or violation, refusal or failure to perform any lawful contract by any party thereto... 

Other states have similar statutes which can provide for relief unavailable under the common law tort of tortious interference with contract, such as treble damages and attorney’s fees.

 NO CLAIM AGAINST POLA:  Significantly, it is not a requirement of either of the tort claims brought against USC that Pola also be sued for breach of contract.  The Titans, in fact, chose not to sue Pola. Accordingly, USC alone must answer for the breach of Pola’s employment contract with the Titans.  

RESTRICTIONS ON RESIGNATION: Generally, an employer cannot legally compel an employee to continue employment against his will. An employer may still sue for damages, such as the cost of locating and training a replacement, if an employee is induced to resign in breach of a contract which includes:  

1. Employment for a specified term;  
2. A specified notice period for resignation;
3. A requirement that an employee be available to assist with locating and/or training his replacement;
4. An opportunity to exceed or match an offer by a prospective employer; or
5. A requirement of prior notice to or permission from the employer regarding discussions with a prospective employer.

Such contractual provisions must be valid under the governing state law to support a claim for tortious interference with contract.  

RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS: An employer may also sue for damages if an employee is induced to breach restrictive covenants with the employer during or after his employment relationship. Typical restrictive covenants address:

1. Unauthorized moonlighting for another employer;
2. Unauthorized employment by an existing or former customer of the employer;
3. Competition with the employer;
4. Competitive solicitation of the employer’s customers which the employee serviced;
5. Unauthorized use or disclosure of the employer’s trade secrets or confidential information; 
6. Unauthorized solicitation or hiring of the employer’s employees; or
7. Negative or disparaging comments regarding the employer.

Such contractual provisions must likewise be valid under the governing state law to sustain a claim for tortious interference with contract. 

BEST PRACTICES FOR EMPLOYERS: Employers should adopt recruiting and hiring protocols which endeavor to minimize the risk of a lawsuit for job candidates with contractual obligations to existing or previous employers. Legal counsel should be consulted not only in adopting and implementing such protocols but also in assessing the risks presented by relevant contractual obligations of individual candidates for employment.

Download a copy of this article: " Titans v. Trojans: Tortious Interference with Contract in Spotlight!," Labor & Employment Law Update, August 2010.

Read more Labor & Employment Law articles by Robert G. Chadwick, Jr.

Robert G. Chadwick is a shareholder in the law firm of Campbell & Chadwick, P.C. He is Board Cerfied in Labor And Employment Law by the Texas Board Of Legal Specialization. He represents clients in a variety of Labor & Employment. Mr. Chadwick may be reached by email or at 972-277-8585.

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner speaks with George Stephanopoulos about the state of the economy in the United States.

From our friends over at Insurance Journal:

A U.S. judge Monday refused to dismiss the state of Virginia's challenge to President Barack Obama's landmark helathcare law, a setback that will force his administration to mount a lengthy legal defense of the overhaul effort.

U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson refused to dismiss the state's lawsuit which argues the law's requirement that its residents have health insurance was unconstitutional, allowing the challenge to go forward.

The new law is a major cornerstone of President Barack Obama's domestic agenda and administration officials have vigorously defended it as constitutional and necessary to stem huge increases in costs for health care.

 Virginia's lawsuit is one of several trying to undo the law which Obama signed earlier this year aimed at overhauling the $2.5 trillion healthcare system.

BP oil-spill fund administrator Kenneth Feinberg now says he'll disclose how much he's being paid to administer the $20 billion compensation program. Feinberg acknowledged "a perception of a conflict" if BP pays him to serve as an ostensibly neutral arbitrator of spill claims. But "who else should pay?" he asked.

Last week, we asked whether keeping Feinberg's pay confidential was a good idea. First of all, he's serving in a quasi-judicial process, deciding who gets paid how much, in a fund that was established under the strong influence of the White House. Feinberg is a solid contributor to the Democratic Party, and while he worked pro bono on the government-established compensation fund for 9/11 victims, his firm has grown rich processing claims for asbestos and other mass torts. At a minimum, said Southwestern Law School mass-torts expert Byron Stier, his pay and method of calculating it should be disclosed.

Now Feinberg has agreed. He said he'll reveal his pay at the same time as he discloses the overall budget of the spill fund. He also said he might ask an outsider with "great credibility" to set his salary. The $7 billion 9/11 fund cost some $86 million to run, while Feinberg's firm was also compensated for its expenses.

Read the full story here on the Forbes website.

Banking titan Citigroup Inc. is paying $75 million to settle civil charges that it misled investors about its potential losses from subprime mortgages as the housing bust hit in 2007.

The Securities and Exchange Commission announced the settlement with Citigroup on Thursday. It said the company repeatedly made misleading statements in calls with analysts and regulatory filings about the extent of its holdings tied to high-risk mortgages. As borrowers defaulted, Citigroup's losses reached tens of billions of dollars on complex instruments linked to mortgages, pushing the bank to a financial precipice.

Citigroup earned $2.7 billion in the second quarter of this year. So the penalty represents less than 3 percent of its net income from April through June.

The settlement marked the second time in weeks that the agency reached an agreement on punitive action against a major Wall Street firm in connection with the financial crisis. Earlier this month, Goldman Sachs & Co. agreed to pay $550 million to settle civil fraud charges that it sold mortgage investments without telling buyers that the securities had been crafted with input from a client that was betting on them to fail.

Read the full article here on the Yahoo!News website.

The July 2010 edition of LPL eAdvisory, an enewsletter from the ABA Standing Committee on Lawyers' Professional Liability, published my article about the recent decision of the Texas State Bar not requiring disclosure of malpractice insurance by Texas lawyers. This article is different from other discussions on the topic because it seeks to explore the underlying cultural changes that are driving the debate about disclosure.

On April 14, 2010, the Texas Supreme Court informed the Texas State Bar that it would not require mandatory disclosure of professional liability insurance by Texas attorneys. In a letter to State Bar President Roland Johnson, Chief Justice Jefferson wrote, "Having considered the State Bar's recommendation and the materials' supporting the recommendation, the Court will retain the status quo."

It is significant that Chief Justice Jefferson chose the words "retain the status quo" because it helps us understand why Texas rejected the ABA's recommendation to disclose professional liability insurance.

Read More: "A Viewpoint on Disclosure of Malpractice Insurance by Texas Lawyers."

Bruce A. Campbell is the managing shareholder in the law firm of Campbell & Chadwick, P.C. He has defended lawyers and other professionals on a variety of malpractice and other tort claims for more than 25 years in claims totaling more than $2 billion. Mr. Campbell may be reached by email or at 972-277-8585.

Follow the link below to watch Charlie Rose conduct an hour long interview with Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner.  Topics discussed include the new financial reform law, how that law will effect the relationship between the White House and Wall Street, and how it will impact consumers.

Finally, there is an interesting take on what worries Secretary Geithner the most.

The full interview is here on the Charlie Rose website.

This morning, I had a couple different people point me in the direction of this story from the London Telegraph:

"Executive Faces Jail After Dumping Laptop in Pond"

It seems that, while switching jobs, Euan Nicolson breached the terms of his contract by working hard to bring a large client to his new employer.  when the client went with him, red flags were raised.  After being ordered not to "destroy, tamper with or control" any personal computers or other similar devices,  Mr. Nicoloson's calculated response was to throw his computer and some memory sticks into a nearby river.  Unfortunately, the computer was recovered and he later admitted to the tampering.

He faces the potential for jail time.  You can read the full article at the link above.

The head of the Securities and Exchange Commission said Tuesday the agency has revamped itself and stepped up enforcement in the wake of the financial crisis. It is also ready to write numerous new rules for the sweeping financial legislation that is about to become law, she told House lawmakers.

SEC Chairman Mary Schapiro appeared at a House subcommittee hearing, in her first public testimony since passage of the financial overhaul legislation that gives the agency new powers. Her comments also came after the agency agreed to let Wall Street giant Goldman Sachs Group Inc. pay $550 million to settle civil fraud charges.

Lawmakers voiced approval for changes Schapiro has made at the SEC in response to the agency's failure to detect the massive Madoff fraud and other schemes. Some Republicans, however, chafed at the expanded authority the SEC will gain over hedge funds, derivatives and other areas.

Read the full story here on the Yahoo!Finance web page.

In one of the largest penalties in Wall Street history, Goldman Sachs Group Inc. agreed to pay $550 million to settle civil charges that it duped clients by selling mortgage securities that were secretly designed by a hedge-fund firm to cash in on the housing market's collapse.

Kevin LaCroix, Partner in OakBridge Insurance Services and author of The D&O Diary has broken down the details of the settlement, including some items that have not recieved the widespread attention in the media.

Read his insights here on the D&O Diary Blog.