Boeing Chief Ousted by E-mail

E-mail Etiquette for Employees and Execs. "Tips to Consider for Safer Electronic Communications. "Your company has a right to know and record what you're e-mailing over the corporate computer systems. Personal messages can come back to haunt you or even get you fired. . . .It's fast, convenient and accessible. But the wonders of electronic communications — e-mail and instant messaging — in the workplace can also bring woes to employees and executives. Just ask Harry Stonecipher, the recently deposed chief executive officer of aircraft maker Boeing.

On Monday, the 68-year-old CEO was ousted when the company's board of directors learned he was having a consensual affair with a female executive. Who snitched? In part, it was Stonecipher himself. According to The Wall Street Journal, a "very graphic" e-mail sent by the CEO to his paramour was discovered by another employee — who promptly tipped off the company's board. . ."

J.P. Morgan pays $2.1M Settlement for Losing E-mail

J.P. Morgan pays $2.1M settlement  "Bank settles with SEC, NYSE, NASD over loss of e-mails sought in stock analyst misconduct cases.  Wall Street investment bank J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. will pay $2.1 million in fines to settle accusations that it failed to retain e-mails sought in investigations of stock research analyst misconduct, the Securities and Exchange Commission said Monday. In a case stemming from the late-1990s technology and telecommunications stock bubble, J.P. Morgan will pay $700,000 each to the SEC, the New York Stock Exchange and brokerages regulator NASD over record-keeping rule issues, the SEC said. J.P. Morgan also will review "its procedures regarding the preservation of electronic mail communications," the SEC said. . ."

E-mail Risks

Blunkett Resignation a Reminder of the Risks of Email.  "LONDON, 16 December 2004 - The events surrounding Home Secretary David Blunkett’s resignation yesterday present a timely reminder of the risks involved in communicating by email, according to Orchestria, the global leader in the fast-emerging Active Policy Management software market. The ex-cabinet minister is the newest addition to an eclectic range of figures who have suffered personally or professionally as a result of compromising email messages, including: . . ."

Destruction of E-mail

Burst.com Alleges Microsoft Cover-Up. "One of the last two companies standing against what it calls Microsoft's anti-competitive behavior said it has smoking-gun proof that Redmond deliberately destroyed evidence in an antitrust case. Burst.com, creator of video and audio delivery software for IP networks, claims that Redmond stole technology and trade secrets acquired during two years of negotiations. In a June 2002 civil suit, Burst.com accused Microsoft (Quote, Chart) of anti-competitive behavior and violating federal and state antitrust laws. Now, court documents claim, Burst.com has evidence that Microsoft followed a policy of deliberately destroying e-mail that could be used as evidence against it. Legal documents made public on Wednesday include evidence of a 1995 "do-not-save-e-mail directive," and a "30-Day E-Mail Destruction Rule" promulgated by Jim Allchin, group vice president of Platforms . . ."

Legal Implications - Self-Destructing E-Mail

The legal implications of self-destructing e-mail. "According to an article by Laurie Varendorff, an Australian records management expert, Microsoft and IBM have developed software that enables creators of e-mail messages to have tremendous control over their messages, even after they have been sent.
Mr. Varendorff states that the relatively recent release of Microsoft Office 2003, with its Digital Rights Management (DRM) and Information Rights Management (IRM) features, permits the creator of an e-mail message to control the printing, forwarding and copying of the message. Moreover, and importantly, the feature supposedly empowers the creator to set a date and time for the expiration of the e-mail, as well as the expiration of Word, Excel, and PowerPoint documents at the volition of the creator, rather than at the will of the recipient. . . "

E-mail Supports Ethics Charges

(9-20-04). Palin explains her actions in Ruedrich case. . "Ruedrich's computer contained 24 e-mail exchanges between him and Evergreen officials and lobbyists. One is well-known because it was the basis for one of the charges in the ethics complaint: Ruedrich leaked a confidential AOGCC legal memorandum to lobbyist-lawyer Kyle Parker that had been written by the assistant attorney general assigned to the agency, Rob Mintz. But the range of electronic conversation is much more extensive. In March, Ruedrich had frequent contact with Parker and others in his law firm as they worked behind the scenes on legislation that weakened local control over coal bed methane development. Sometimes the messages were just pleasantries, such as Parker's reminder to Ruedrich on Sept. 29, 2003, that they would see each other at a town hall meeting on coal bed methane in Sutton the next evening and have dinner together the day after that. In at least eight instances, Ruedrich forwarded messages to Parker that he received or sent to state officials and Valley residents. Because they were blind copies or copies made after the original message was sent, the other parties had no way of knowing that the lobbyist was receiving them. In his private messages to Parker, Ruedrich didn't try to hide his disdain for Sen. Scott Ogan, a fellow Republican from the Palmer area, who has taken credit for the legislation establishing the coal bed methane industry in Alaska and who, for a time, was on Evergreen's payroll as a $40,000-a-year consultant. Ogan quit the consultant job Sept. 30, 2003, under pressure and quit the Legislature last month in the face of a recall election. On Aug. 27, 2003, Ruedrich forwarded to Parker from his work computer an e-mail he had earlier sent from home to Jim Clark and Dennis Fradley, Murkowski's communications director at the time. In his message, Ruedrich runs through a series of "myths" about coal bed methane, such as the risk to water contamination, and dismisses most as wrong. . . ."

Trying to Undelete E-mail

(8-28-04). Experts try to resurrect SAIF files. A Gresham computer firm is selected to seek deleted e-mails. "Experts in computer forensics often can resurrect computer files that seemed to disappear, but the deleted e-mail of former SAIF Corp. President Katherine Keene might remain a mystery. Earlier this week, Marion County Judge Paul Lipscomb found SAIF in contempt of court for failing to hand over public records and recommended sanctions that could result in more than $1 million in fines against SAIF. He also ordered an examination of computers used by Keene, her successor Cecil Tibbetts, and their assistants to see if deleted files could be recovered. . . "

Category: Electronic Discovery and Electronic Evidence

Old E-Mail Messages Leave a Trail

(8-26-04). KPMG Wrote New Versions of Shelters Ruled Illegal. "KPMG, the accounting firm under scrutiny for promoting tax shelters found to be abusive, discussed selling a new shelter highly similar to a banned version more than two years after the Internal Revenue Service outlawed the original one and any variations, according to newly disclosed internal e-mail messages. . . . The newly released e-mail messages, which dated from the mid-1990's to 2003, refer to at least a dozen new tax shelters that appear aggressive in their reading of the tax code, according to a government official who has reviewed the documents."

E-mail: Someone may be watching

Electronic messages take greater role in legal issues. "Instant messaging and employee e-mails have become an attorney's first legal line of offense -- or, in some cases, defense -- for workplace lawsuits, according to a new poll from the Columbus, Ohio-based ePolicy Institute and the American Management Association. The survey earlier this year of 840 U.S. companies found that one in five have either received subpoenas for employee e-mail or have used e-mail to defend the company against allegations of sexual, racial or other discrimination claims. That is a dramatic increase from two years before, when one in 10 companies faced a lawsuit because of e-mail practices, the poll found. "Today, e-mail and instant messaging are the electronic equivalent of DNA evidence," said Nancy Flynn executive director of ePolicy Institute and author of the best-selling books "Instant Messaging Rules" and "E-mail Rules."

India - E-mail Inadmissible

(8-11-04) Win some, lose some. ON one side we hear that Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has stressed the importance of a highway proposal linking countries and laying optical fibre telecom link alongside it. Elsewhere, there is a tax tribunal that decides e-mail correspondence to be inadmissible as evidence. Apparently jarring, but it was in the Forbes Patvolk case that the Chennai tribunal had trashed e-mail. While the company was banking on the electronic confirmation received after rushing goods to a waiting ship, the Department was saying that the e-mail confirmation was "not signed by any authority". . . the Mumbai tribunal had, in 2002, decided that e-mail message was "an unsubstantiated and clumsy evidence... worthy of no reliance" when it was "sent without disclosing its source". Again, in the Ridhi Sidhi Furniture case, e-mail evidence was rejected "on the ground that the name of the sender of the e-mail was blocked in the copies supplied to importer and the address of person sending the quotation was also not known."

Comment: Interesting story how e-mail in electronic discovery in India was inadmissible.

Links

Blog powered by TypePad
Member since 11/2003