July 19, 2019

Archives for February 1, 2012

State Board of Health Proposes Rule to Require Annual Influenza Vaccination for Certain Nursing Facility Personnel

The Colorado State Board of Health has proposed a rule to require all acute care and long-term nursing care facilities to annually vaccinate personnel against influenza. All other licensed healthcare entities must assess their own clients, staff, and services and develop a written policy regarding influenza vaccination of its health care workers. All licensed healthcare entities will be required to annually report their influenza vaccination rates to the Department.

A hearing on the proposed rule will be held on Wednesday, February 15, 2012 at the Department of Public Health and Environment, Building A, Sabin-Cleere Conference Room, 4300 Cherry Creek Drive South, Denver, Colorado 80246, beginning at 10:00 am.

Full text of the proposed rule can be found here. Further information about the rule and hearing can be found here.

Janet Raasch: Competitive Intelligence – An Essential Component of Better Law Firm Decision-Making (Part 1)

Editor’s Note: This is the first section of a two-part article. Click here to read Part 2.

Important law firm decisions should never be made in a vacuum.  Instead, they should be made with an abundance of the right information in hand.  For many law firm decisions, “the right information” means competitive intelligence.

Competitive intelligence is defined as a systematic and ethical program for gathering, analyzing and managing information about the external business environment – information that can affect all of a law firm’s plans, decisions and operations.

Competitive intelligence can be information about organizations – like your clients, potential clients and adversaries.  It can be information about other law firms – like collaborators, opposing counsel or even potential merger partners.  It can be information about the legal needs in particular industries or markets.

Competitive intelligence can also be information about people – like the people you will meet in a pitch, in the boardroom, in the courtroom (like opposing counsel or an expert witness) or in a hiring interview.

In any of these settings, knowledge of companies and people is power.

“When gathering competitive intelligence, there is a wrong way and a right way to go about it,” said Wanda McDavid.  “The wrong way is typified by computer hackers like Lisbeth Salander in The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo.  As much as we enjoy the book and the movie, and want Lisbeth to succeed, we cannot condone her tactics.  This kind of corporate espionage makes for good entertainment, but bad – and unethical – business.”

“The ethical gathering of competitive intelligence complies with all applicable laws – domestic as well as international,” said McDavid.  “It is obtained from legitimate online and print sources, in both public and subscription databases.  When obtained by interviews (either with targeted competitor staff and customers or as general field research), the ethical interviewer discloses up front both her identity and the purpose of the interview.”

McDavid and her colleague Judy Goater discussed the ethical gathering and use of competitive intelligence by law firms at the monthly educational program of the Rocky Mountain Chapter of the Legal Marketing Association.  The program was held January 10, 2012 at Maggiano’s Little Italy in downtown Denver.

McDavid is president and Goater is director of services development at Access Information, a Denver-based firm that specializes in the discovery and compilation of competitive intelligence for use by law firms.  Both have master’s degrees in librarianship and vast experience in the legal industry.  The PowerPoint slides from this presentation have been made available on the company website, in the “training” section.

“Before starting any competitive research project,” said McDavid, “it is essential that you have a plan.  Thanks to the Internet, there are an almost unlimited number of resources out there.  You can waste a lot of time and money searching them all.  If we know your goals for a particular research project, we can help you concentrate your resources on the most likely, valid and reliable sources for your purpose.”

Competitive intelligence on companies, competitors and adversaries

Some sources of competitive intelligence about companies, competitors and adversaries are paid and some are free to the public.  Because of the nature of their work, many law firms and law librarians already have access to many of the paid resources.  These include products offered by industry giants LexisNexis and Thomson West.

“For industry research, I also like to use a product called Profound, offered by MarketResearch.com,” said McDavid.  “They offer a wide range of reports for purchase.  An entire report can be costly but, if you know exactly what you are looking for, you can order just part of a report for a lesser fee.

“And don’t forget,” said McDavid.  “Many of these paid resources are available for you to use free of charge at the Denver Public Library.”

Free resources for company research include www.llrx.com and Zimmerman’s Research Guide.  In its database, Zimmerman’s offers links to both company information and company personnel.  “Both of these sites are great places to start if you are trying to get an overview of the kind of research that is out there,” said McDavid.

The Virtual Chase product by Justia.com offers business research as well as county and municipal law resources.  Information on companies can be found at Hoovers, Yahoo! Finance, Google Finance, Nexis company information and ValuationResources.com.

“A lot of good research is available from Google,” said McDavid.  “We all know how to do a Google search, but much more refined searches and results are available via the Google Advanced General Search Page.  Google Scholar and Google Advanced Scholar Search offer useful results that have been ‘purged’ of casual hits.”

Court and government sites – especially the Secretary of State’s office — include public records and a wealth of useful information.  “If you want to know where a company is headed,” said McDavid, “check the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Database.”

Janet Ellen Raasch is a writer, ghostwriter, and blogger (www.constantcontentblog.com) who works closely with professional services providers – especially lawyers, law firms, legal consultants and legal organizations – to help them achieve name recognition and new business through publication of keyword-rich content for the web and social media sites as well as articles and books for print. She can be reached at (303) 399-5041 or jeraasch@msn.com.

Tenth Circuit: Trust Deeds Explicitly Granted Authority to Foreclose, Even If Securitization Deprived Implicit Power to Do So

The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals published its opinion in Commonwealth Property Advocates, LLC v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. on Tuesday, January 31, 2012.

The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. Petitioner acquired title to three pieces of real property in Utah from three defaulting borrowers and then filed three diversity lawsuits against various Respondents who held interests in the property, seeking to prevent foreclosure. Petitioner argued that Respondents “had no authority to foreclose because the notes in each case had been securitized and sold on the open market. Because the security follows the debt, [Petitioner] argued, once [Respondents] sold the security they could not foreclose absent authorization from every investor who had purchased an interest in the securitized note.” Respondents filed motions to dismiss, which the district court granted.

The Court agreed with the district court’s decision. “Even assuming [Petitioner] is correct that securitization deprives [Respondents] of their implicit power to foreclose as holders of the trust deeds, the trust deeds explicitly granted [Respondents] the authority to foreclose. Contrary to [Petitioner]’s contention, § 57-1-35 in no way prohibits such an authorization. The statute merely says the transfer of a debt operates as the transfer of the security. It says nothing about who is or is not authorized to foreclose on a trust deed.” The Utah Court of Appeals has said that the statute does not prohibit parties from contracting for such arrangements, and the state court’s decision is consistent both with the statute and with numerous federal district court cases that have addressed the same arguments. Because the Court saw nothing to suggest the Utah Supreme Court would reach a different conclusion, it deferred to the Utah Court of Appeals’ decision. “Because [Petitioner]’s diversity jurisdiction claims have no legal basis under Utah law, the district court properly dismissed all three complaints.”

Tenth Circuit: Unpublished Opinions, 1/31/12

On Tuesday, January 31, 2012, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued one published opinion and twelve unpublished opinions.


Schrader v. Richardson

Igwe v. Saint Anthony’s Hospital

United States v. Lee

United States v. Cosey

James v. Roberts

Trinen v. City of Aurora

United States v. Johnson

Yarberry v. Vilsack

United States v. Wrobel

United States v. Gutierrez

United States v. Hunter

United States v. Blaze

No case summaries are available for unpublished opinions. However, published opinions are summarized and provided by Legal Connection.