
Toolbox had never heard of a "first look agreement" until it picked up a sample of today's second download, Exclusive First Look Agreement, submitted for your perusal by Kenneth M. Kaufman (Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP) and Thomas A. Magnani (Howard Rice Nemerovski Canady Falk & Rabkin). If Toolbox understands correctly, these are licensing agreements that obligate one party to give another party first dibs (or look, or right of first refusal) at a creative project, usually film or television, with the creative party receiving some sort of consideration for its sacrifice. Hey, Toolbox got that right out of the first paragraph of the download.

Papa Toolbox never divulged his salary to the family. "None of your
business," he intoned. Of course, when Toolbox got a job, Papa Tool
would do anything he could to find out what Toolbox earned, and then he
tried to find ways to get Toolbox to give it all away (all being like
$25) to UNICEF or to buy trees in Israel. Of course, when push came to
shove, Mama Toolbox would side with Papa Toolbox, which always left a
vote of 2-1 in favor of whatever initiatives Papa Tool had in mind for
Toolbox's not so lofty riches. This was the Tool family's own
rudimentary "say on pay" program, though it was more like "say what you
can do with your pay." Toolbox can't imagine that any company would go
that far with executive compensation, even with all the
anti-compensation sentiment out there. But the compensation landscape
has been changing dramatically, what with a new pay Czar and the SEC
revisiting its rules on the matter, so never say never.

Even while the SEC's auditing processes have come under fire for
potential lapses in the Madoff affair (and now, allegedly in the
Stanford Financial case), those processes do exist, and the Agency does
carry out audits of investment companies, such as mutual funds. At one
of her initial public appearances, speaking before the assembled throng
for PLI's The SEC Speaks in 2009 program (held February 6 in
D.C.), SEC Chairman Mary Schapiro assured that "A strong and
reinvigorated SEC will be on the beat like never before to catch
wrongdoers." That is to say, when the SEC comes knocking, you better be
ready.
The
SEC's Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations
(OCIE) maintains "[e]xaminers in Washington DC and in the Commission's
11 regional offices," who "conduct examinations of the nation's
registered entities, including self-regulatory organizations,
broker-dealers, transfer agents, investment companies and investment
advisers." The exams serve a dual purpose: detection of fraud and other
securities law violations, as well as fostering compliance with rules
and regulations. Inside the OCIE, there is a separate "Office of
Investment Adviser/Investment Company Examinations," which is
"responsible for the examination of approximately 10,600 investment
advisers ("IAs") and 940 investment company complexes ("ICs")
registered with the Commission with total assets of approximately $32.3
trillion dollars." It is this sub-examiner with which we are concerned
today. When they come knocking, you want to be able to answer the door
with a smile. So how can you help to put out the welcome mat?

PLI: Can you offer a general overview of the principle of "controlled
group" liability under ERISA, and the circumstances under which the
incurrence of pension liabilities by a private equity fund portfolio
investment company may result in liability to the Investment Fund, its
affiliates and/or the Investment Fund's other portfolio companies?
BRIAN D. ROBBINS: The following is a general overview of the
principle of "controlled group" liability under the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974, as amended ("ERISA"), and the
circumstances under which the incurrence of pension liabilities by a
private equity fund (an "Investment Fund") portfolio investment company
may result in liability to the Investment Fund, its affiliates and/or
the Investment Fund's other portfolio companies. [I] also summarize the
application to "controlled groups" of discrimination testing for plans
intended to be qualified under Section 401(a) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986, as amended (the "Code").
Continue reading "Brian D. Robbins: Controlled groups on the ERISA hot seat"

PLI: We often hear the "environmental" case for green; what is the business case for green real estate?
ELLEN SINREICH: What is often referred to as the "business case" for
green real estate is beginning to be understood, documented and
quantified. Intuitively, it makes sense: buildings that use minimal
amounts of energy and that have highly efficient and appropriately
sized mechanical systems, that feel better
to be in, incorporate recycled, rapidly renewable and regional
materials, make the most of sun, wind and storm water patterns,
contribute to diversifying natural ecosystems, allow for more open
green space, reduced water consumption and minimize their burden on
aging, overtaxed municipal water systems are more valuable buildings
than they would otherwise be. This translates into an increased bottom
line. How can anyone argue with the benefits of a building that
conserves the earth's natural resources, is healthier to occupy and
costs less to operate and maintain?
|