Search results

The purpose of this paper is to provide an examination of Black et al.’s theoretical framework of repatriation adjustment as it relates to career planning for employees with international work experience.

The approach combines narrative with argument and analysis.

This paper expands on re‐entry adjustment to include additional research on repatriation, and discusses the utility of these theoretical propositions for individual and organizational career planning.

Suggestions for future research include repatriation strategies, incorporating concepts from the literature on other life transitions, and the importance of recognizing psychological variables in work adjustment.

Implications for career development are also discussed to help employees and career counsellors understand the impact of working internationally and to help organizations design ways to help employees integrate their expertise and experience through proactive and supportive repatriation practices.

The education and training function of a non‐profit, discipline specialized database producer will be traced and comments offered as to its contribution to end user objectives. Later work relating to divisions of end user groups in terms of market and functional segmentation, will be used to present findings obtained in a special design study conducted by BIOSIS with the assistance of Ilium Associates, professional communications specialists. Market segments will include educators, students and managers, and some scenarios for end user education will be presented.

If the past 30 years of history have taught anything, it is that white‐collar offenders often run afoul of the law by their participation in cover‐ups rather than their part in a substantive criminal offenses. In August 1974, President Richard Nixon was forced to resign as President of the United States ‐ not because of the Watergate break in itself, but his attempts to cover it up. President Clinton was impeached and narrowly avoided indictment ‐ not for his sexual escapades with Monica Lewinsky, but his attempt to redefine the word “is” during his testimony at a deposition. Recently, we have seen the demise of Arthur Andersen, LLP ‐ not as the result of a securities fraud conviction, but a conviction for obstruction of justice. Frank Quattrone was indicted recently for allegedly counseling the destruction of documents, and Martha Stewart was indicted, not for insider trading or the alleged conduct that first brought her under the microscope of the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) and Department of Justice (“DOJ”), but allegedly for misleading federal agents. This article will review the current round of indictments against Wall Street luminaries for obstruction, as well as the new obstruction provisions of the Sarbanes‐Oxley Act. It then will make some observations on how these events should impact a corporation’s document retention policy. Finally, it will discuss how compliance programs that aim to enforce the laws of this country and assist governmental inquiries may actually ensnare corporation employees in an obstruction trap.

The Arthur Andersen case is a nightmare for inside counsel – an act of inside counsel, which probably was a well‐intentioned attempt to protect the client’s interests, resulted in the conviction of Arthur Andersen. The verdict in the government’s obstruction of justice case against Andersen shows, among other things, that every time an in‐house lawyer sends an e‐mail, he or she must anticipate that privilege will not attach and adverse inferences may be drawn. On June 15, 2002, the jurors in that case returned a guilty verdict against the accounting firm, which, according to press reports of interviews with jurors, was based not on the government’s presentation of evidence demonstrating Andersen’s “wholesale destruction of documents’ or even on the testimony of David Duncan, Andersen’s lead partner on the Enron audit, that he obstructed justice, but rather on a single e‐mail from Andersen in‐house counsel Nancy Temple.

To provide guidance to investment companies on document retention policies based on Section 802 of the Sarbanes‐Oxley Act of 2002, codified as Section 1519 of the United States Code.

Reviews the conviction of Arthur Andersen for obstruction of justice based on the way the firm implemented its document retention/destruction policy as Enron was collapsing, and the Supreme Court reversal of that conviction. Explains why the Supreme Court decision should no longer guide an investment company's document retention/destruction policy in light of more recently enacted Section 1519, which imposes stiff penalties on anyone who knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, or covers up any record or document with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence any federal investigation, or in contemplation of such a proceeding.

Suggests a few straightforward rules for an investment company's document retention/destruction policy with a warning to err on the side of caution.

In light of Section 1519, every investment company needs to review its document retention/destruction policy. This article provides useful guidelines for doing so.

Let us return to Nancy Cruzan's story. Hopeful that Nancy would eventually recover, her parents, Lester and Joyce Cruzan, agreed to have doctors insert a feeding tube to deliver artificial hydration and nutrition – a decision they would one day regret. Although the Cruzans visited frequently, Nancy was unable to respond to their attention. After four years had elapsed, the Cruzans concluded that Nancy would never regain consciousness and should be allowed to die.

Few issues in recent times have so provoked debate and dissention within the library field as has the concept of fees for user services. The issue has aroused the passions of our profession precisely because its roots and implications extend far beyond the confines of just one service discipline. Its reflection is mirrored in national debates about the proper spheres of the public and private sectors—in matters of information generation and distribution, certainly, but in a host of other social ramifications as well, amounting virtually to a debate about the most basic values which we have long assumed to constitute the very framework of our democratic and humanistic society.