Diving into 2013, we must accept change
A country divided means change is surely on the horizon for companies
January 27, 2013 at 07:00 PM
2 minute read
No one likes change. Well, very few people do. And those who do only like it—or more accurately, tolerate it better than most—because they have trained themselves over the course of years to accept it, welcome it and sometimes embrace it.
On a larger scale, some of the events of last year have forced us to look change in the eye and either accept what's to come or … brace ourselves for whatever unpleasantness it brings. First, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the first national health care program our country has ever seen. The controversial Obamacare law means big decisions for both businesses and employees and, in some cases, major overhauls to existing benefits plans. Secondly, for the first time in history, a sitting U.S. president came out in support of gay marriage. Then, the Supreme Court jumped into the debate—agreeing to weigh in on two of the five cases seeking marriage equality that hit its desk. The high court will hear arguments for these cases next month. And finally, tragedies such as the Colorado theater shooting, the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, the Oregon mall shooting and countless other violent crimes across the country have opened up the debate over gun control—and a heated debate it is.
On all three of these issues, it's an understatement to say that the country is divided. But the reality is, one of the sides on each issue is going to walk away disappointed—in fact, in the case of Obamacare, that has already happened.
Although every year brings new and sometimes exciting—but also sometimes unwelcome—changes, 2013 may shape up to be more epic than past years. Whether you're grappling with one of the above-mentioned hot topics, your personal life takes an unexpected turn or your company faces an unprecedented crisis that requires quick, competent management (this month's cover story offers advice on crisis management—see Taming the Beast), something—major or minor—is likely to make you take pause and resist. In most cases, it's human nature.
But as we dive head first into 2013 and all it has to offer, let's all do our best to accept change, welcome change and even embrace the experience to learn.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'Utterly Bewildering': GCs Struggle to Grasp Scattershot Nature of Law Firm Rate Hikes
Regulators Say AI Enforcement Sweeps Are Reining in Hucksters, Not Innovation
Target's Don Liu: 4 Fortune 500 GC Posts, a Singular Focus on Opening Doors for Asian Americans
9 minute readTrending Stories
- 1The Law Firm Disrupted: Playing the Talent Game to Win
- 2Preparing Your Law Firm for 2025: Smart Ways to Embrace AI & Other Technologies
- 3BD Settles Thousands of Bard Hernia Mesh Lawsuits
- 4GlaxoSmithKline Settles Most Zantac Lawsuits for $2.2B
- 5A&O Shearman Adopts 3-Level Lockstep Pay Model Amid Shift to All-Equity Partnership
Who Got The Work
Blank Rome partner Andrew T. Hambelton has stepped in to defend Fragrancenet.com in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The case, filed Aug. 29 in New York Southern District Court by the Blakely Law Group, targets the defendants for allegedly selling counterfeit fragrance products. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Lorna G. Schofield, is 1:24-cv-06521, Abercrombie & Fitch Trading Co. v. Quester (US) Enterprises, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Davis Polk & Wardwell partners Mari Grace and Edmund Polubinski III have entered appearances for Australia-based Bitcoin-mining company Iris Energy and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Eastern District Court by the Rosen Law Firm, contends that the defendants concealed the inadequacy of the company's site in Childress County, Texas, including it being 'ill-equipped' and unable to operate the company's proprietary design. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Peggy Kuo, is 1:24-cv-07046, Williams-Israel v. Iris Energy Limited et al.
Who Got The Work
Ryan S. Stippich of Reinhart Boerner Van Deuren has entered an appearance for biopharmaceutical company Veru Inc. and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Sept. 30 in Wisconsin Western District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of June Ovadias, accuses the defendant of failing to disclose that small sample sizes and other issues rendered it unlikely that the FDA would grant Emergency Use Authorization for the cancer drug candidate sabizabulin as a potential treatment for COVID-19. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge William M. Conley, is 3:24-cv-00676, Ovadias, June v. Steiner, Mitchell et al.
Who Got The Work
Holland & Knight partners Cynthia A. Gierhart and Thomas Willcox Brooke have entered appearances for Pakistani American Political Action Committee and Rao Kamran Ali in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The action, filed Sept. 24 in District of Columbia District Court by Jackson Walker on behalf of Pakistani American Public Affairs Committee, accuses the defendants of using a mark that's confusingly similar to the plaintiff's 'Pak-Pac' marks without authorization. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Randolph D. Moss, is 1:24-cv-02727, Pakistani American Public Affairs Committee v. Pakistani American Political Action Committee et al.
Who Got The Work
Lauren M. Rosenberg and Yonatan Even of Cravath, Swaine & Moore have stepped in to represent Israel-based Oddity Tech Ltd. in a pending securities class action. The case, filed Aug. 30 in New York Southern District Court by Pomerantz LLP and Holzer & Holzer, contends that the defendant made materially misleading statements regarding the capability of Oddity's AI technology and ongoing civil litigation, resulting in the artifical inflation of the market price of Oddity's securities. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Margaret M. Garnett, is 1:24-cv-06571, Hoare v. Oddity Tech Ltd. et al.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250