In the Know: Developing a Plan to Collect Company Information
Preserving the company's knowledge often falls in the hands of the legal department.
February 28, 2010 at 07:00 PM
3 minute read
In most companies, much institutional knowledge exists within the legal department. Many companies are not large enough to engage a chief knowledge officer, an executive responsible for coordinating knowledge management programs. So, often the functions of a chief knowledge officer reside de facto within legal.
The reasons should be obvious: The members of the legal department have been involved with the company's key corporate transactions, the principal agreements under which the company has acquired or transferred assets, the litigation resulting in rights that have been gained or liabilities that have continued, and the intellectual property-licensing transactions that affect how the company conducts its business. They understand the relationships with third parties with whom the company has conducted business.
Basically, they have the practical knowledge about how the company arrived at its current position. Therefore, armed with all of this knowledge of the company's history, the legal department should have a plan to collect and retain the information that transcends a company's day-to-day operations.
When companies go through frequent changes of corporate counsel and legal staff, the business can suffer from the loss of the legal department's institutional knowledge. In some instances, that loss can increase a company's exposure to claims from third parties.
Maintaining institutional knowledge requires that the matter or event be memorialized as contemporaneously as possible. There are several ways to accomplish this goal:
- Corporate meetings and resolutions: Prepare dated summaries of each meeting of the board of directors or shareholders. These should be kept with the corporate records. They should also be preserved in a separate book and in an electronic file for easy word search accessibility.
- Contracts: Maintain a contract database that contains summaries of the company's agreements. These contract databases have become much more powerful and user-friendly over the years. Many allow a scanned copy to be attached to the database record for the specific agreement.
- Litigation: Institute a litigation database that contains the key elements of each matter. This is important even when outside counsel is handling and monitoring litigation. When all of the information regarding pending litigation is gathered in one place, responding to auditors becomes a much easier process.
- Intellectual property: Maintain a database that summarizes the company's intellectual property licensing rights and obligations. Licensing arrangements should be kept separate so information regarding licensing rights and obligations can be routinely provided to the businesspeople.
- Major corporate transactions: As soon as a transaction is consummated, provide the key business partners with a brief memorandum that details the main business points of the transaction. If the directors have taken an action that will have a direct impact on the day-to-day or long-term business of a company, memorialize it in a memorandum to the key business partners. These memoranda should be kept in chronological order in hard copy as well as electronic form.
It is well worth devoting the energy and time to maintaining the information as described above. Such steps enhance the value that the legal department brings to the company in general, and will motivate the business team to rely upon legal as a primary resource in planning and structuring the company's business.
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 AllGC Conference Takeaways: Picking AI Vendors 'a Bit of a Crap Shoot,' Beware of Internal Investigation 'Scope Creep'
8 minute readWhy ACLU's New Legal Director Says It's a 'Good Time to Take the Reins'
'Utterly Bewildering': GCs Struggle to Grasp Scattershot Nature of Law Firm Rate Hikes
Trending Stories
- 1The Pusillanimous Press
- 2Contract Lifecycle Management Company ContractPodAi Unveils Leah Drive
- 3'Great News' for Businesses? Judge Halts Transparency Mandate
- 4Consilio Announces ‘Native AI Review,’ Expanding Its Gen AI E-Discovery Offerings
- 5Federal Judge Hits US With $227,000 Sanction for Discovery Misconduct
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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