<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>

<channel>
	<title></title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.ccmlawyer.com/ccmlawblog/?feed=rss2" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.ccmlawyer.com/ccmlawblog</link>
	<description></description>
	<pubDate>Mon, 18 Jan 2010 16:26:57 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6</generator>
	<language>en</language>
			<item>
		<title>Non-Union Employers: Don’t Forget About the National Labor Relations Act</title>
		<link>http://www.ccmlawyer.com/ccmlawblog/?p=575</link>
		<comments>http://www.ccmlawyer.com/ccmlawblog/?p=575#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 18 Jan 2010 16:26:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Adisa Krupalija</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Labor &amp; Employment]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Employment Law]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ccmlawyer.com/ccmlawblog/?p=575</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Many non-union employers labor under the impression that the National Labor Relations Act (&#8221;Act&#8221;) does not apply to them. The decision of Loparex LLC v. NLRB  is a reminder of the Act&#8217;s broad reach.  In Loparex, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the National Labor Relations Board&#8217;s (&#8221;NLRB&#8221;) determination that a company violated the National [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ccmlawyer.com/ccmlawblog/?feed=rss2&amp;p=575</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Estate Tax Repeal &#8212; What Does It All Mean?</title>
		<link>http://www.ccmlawyer.com/ccmlawblog/?p=572</link>
		<comments>http://www.ccmlawyer.com/ccmlawblog/?p=572#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 06 Jan 2010 20:00:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Delrose Koch</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Estate Planning]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Tax]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ccmlawyer.com/ccmlawblog/?p=572</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A bold new era began on January 1st for estate planning attorneys and their clients.  Despite December efforts in Congress to pass legislation amending the estate tax to either permanently reform the system or provide a short term patch, the Senate failed to agree on and pass any legislation regarding the estate tax whatever.  Consequently, on January [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ccmlawyer.com/ccmlawblog/?feed=rss2&amp;p=572</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Don’t Forget Front Pay When Litigating a Title VII Case!</title>
		<link>http://www.ccmlawyer.com/ccmlawblog/?p=564</link>
		<comments>http://www.ccmlawyer.com/ccmlawblog/?p=564#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 04 Jan 2010 16:00:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Adisa Krupalija</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Labor &amp; Employment]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Employment Law]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Title VII]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ccmlawyer.com/ccmlawblog/?p=564</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[After a three-day bench trial in Nashville, Tennessee, U.S. District Court Judge John T. Nixon found in favor of a female African-American plaintiff on her race and sex harassment claims and entered a judgment of $1,073,261.00 against her former employer, Whirlpool Corporation.  EEOC v. Freeman, Case No. 3:06-0593, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118624 (M.D. Tenn. [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ccmlawyer.com/ccmlawblog/?feed=rss2&amp;p=564</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Employers Who Conciliate in Glass Houses Shouldn’t Throw Stones</title>
		<link>http://www.ccmlawyer.com/ccmlawblog/?p=520</link>
		<comments>http://www.ccmlawyer.com/ccmlawblog/?p=520#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 29 Dec 2009 21:34:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ross Molho</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Business Law]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Labor &amp; Employment]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Employment Law]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ccmlawyer.com/ccmlawblog/?p=520</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Stuck in between the investigation phase and the litigation phase, conciliation of a discrimination charge pending before the EEOC is akin to a middle child - often overlooked - but just as important as the other children.  The recent decision in EEOC v. Supervalu, Inc., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116718 (Dec. 15, 2009)  demonstrates that [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ccmlawyer.com/ccmlawblog/?feed=rss2&amp;p=520</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>COBRA Subsidy Extended</title>
		<link>http://www.ccmlawyer.com/ccmlawblog/?p=513</link>
		<comments>http://www.ccmlawyer.com/ccmlawblog/?p=513#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 Dec 2009 20:55:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ross Molho</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Business Counseling]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Labor &amp; Employment]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Employment Law]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ccmlawyer.com/ccmlawblog/?p=513</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Congress and the President brought a little bit of holiday cheer to unemployed Americans struggling to pay for health insurance.  As predicted by this blog in February, President Obama signed the Department of Defense Appropriations Act of 2010 yesterday which extends the federal COBRA health coverage subsidy for involuntarily terminated employees an additional 6 months.  Readers will [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ccmlawyer.com/ccmlawblog/?feed=rss2&amp;p=513</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>M&#038;A Uptick Should Signal Broader Recovery in 2010</title>
		<link>http://www.ccmlawyer.com/ccmlawblog/?p=511</link>
		<comments>http://www.ccmlawyer.com/ccmlawblog/?p=511#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 Dec 2009 18:00:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Steven Marderosian</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Banking]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Business Counseling]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Business Law]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Tax]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Creditors]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Mergers and Acquisitions]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ccmlawyer.com/ccmlawblog/?p=511</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Wall Street Journal reports that Exxon-Mobil&#8217;s recent $31 billion purchase of natural gas exploration firm XTO Energy confirms a recovery of merger and acquisition activity over the past 2 months. It reports that November and December had the most M&#38;A activity since the summer of 2008, with values 4 times greater than a year [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ccmlawyer.com/ccmlawblog/?feed=rss2&amp;p=511</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Illinois Courts Still Torn Over Sunbelt Rentals Decision</title>
		<link>http://www.ccmlawyer.com/ccmlawblog/?p=509</link>
		<comments>http://www.ccmlawyer.com/ccmlawblog/?p=509#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Dec 2009 15:47:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kenneth Vanko</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Business Law]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Labor &amp; Employment]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Litigation]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Non-Competition Agreements]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ccmlawyer.com/ccmlawblog/?p=509</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Illinois may not get a resolution any time soon to whether an employer is required to prove that a non-compete covenant must support a recognized, legitimate business interest. By now, lawyers and commentators are fully aware of the Fourth District&#8217;s ruling in Sunbelt Rentals, Inc. v. Ehlers and its repudiation of a decades-long test used [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ccmlawyer.com/ccmlawblog/?feed=rss2&amp;p=509</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Is the Pay Czar Unconstitutional?</title>
		<link>http://www.ccmlawyer.com/ccmlawblog/?p=502</link>
		<comments>http://www.ccmlawyer.com/ccmlawblog/?p=502#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 30 Oct 2009 20:39:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Greg Adamo</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Business Law]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ccmlawyer.com/ccmlawblog/?p=502</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Stanford Law professor Michael McConnell thinks so.  From today&#8217;s Wall Street Journal:  &#8220;As part of the hastily enacted and seldom-read legislation establishing the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), Congress authorized the Secretary of the Treasury to &#8220;require each TARP recipient to meet appropriate standards for executive compensation.&#8221; To carry out this task, last June the Treasury [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ccmlawyer.com/ccmlawblog/?feed=rss2&amp;p=502</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Two Views on the Federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act</title>
		<link>http://www.ccmlawyer.com/ccmlawblog/?p=500</link>
		<comments>http://www.ccmlawyer.com/ccmlawblog/?p=500#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 30 Oct 2009 15:08:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kenneth Vanko</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Labor &amp; Employment]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Litigation]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Computer Fraud and Abuse Act]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ccmlawyer.com/ccmlawblog/?p=500</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Cases under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act arising out of employee competition continue to head down two divergent paths.
 
In particular, courts are faced with a decision on whether to interpret the CFAA broadly or narrowly when an employer claims an ex-employee has acted &#8220;without authorization&#8221; or has &#8220;exceeded authorization&#8221; in accessing computer-stored information prior [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ccmlawyer.com/ccmlawblog/?feed=rss2&amp;p=500</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>US &#8220;Pay Czar&#8221; May Dramatically Alter Corporate Governance</title>
		<link>http://www.ccmlawyer.com/ccmlawblog/?p=484</link>
		<comments>http://www.ccmlawyer.com/ccmlawblog/?p=484#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 Oct 2009 14:12:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Greg Adamo</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Banking]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Business Counseling]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ccmlawyer.com/ccmlawblog/?p=484</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Much is being made of the &#8220;US Pay Czar,&#8221; Kenneth Feinberg&#8217;s, effort to limit executive compensation at firms that have not re-paid TARP funds.  Feinberg plans to force 175 corporate executives to cut their salaries by 90%.
A Wall Street Journal article suggests that Feinberg won&#8217;t stop at limiting salaries:
&#8220;Mr. Feinberg will also demand a series of [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ccmlawyer.com/ccmlawblog/?feed=rss2&amp;p=484</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
