The meteoric growth in the use of social networking sites by employees has generated a tremendous amount of interest on the part of federal agencies that regulate the employer-employee relationship. Most notably, the National Labor Relations Board ("NLRB"), an agency known more for conducting union representation elections and adjudicating collective bargaining disputes, has taken the lead in promulgating new rules and imposing stringent limitations for employers and employees who utilize social media tools. In several high profile cases-including cases against prominent companies such as Thomson Reuters and General Motors-the current Acting General Counsel ("AGC") of the NLRB, Lafe Solomon, has used his prosecutorial discretion to aggressively pursue the development of broad protection for employee speech in the context of social media. The AGC's view is that social media sites are the Twenty-First Century equivalent of the water cooler, and that employees have protected legal rights to express their views regarding their employer in social media communications-using even the most profane and offensive language-without fear of potential disciplinary action or retaliation. In this new legal milieu, any employer that attempts to discipline an employee based upon comments made on a social media site could be targeted for potential unfair labor practice litigation under the National Labor Relations Act ("NLRA").

The consumerisation of IT is the growing trend for information technology to emerge first in the consumer market and then drive change in the industry generally. One of the most dramatic impacts of this shift is a rise in so-called "bring your own device" strategies in both public and private enterprises.

The mergers and acquisitions market is poised to see a dramatic increase in activity due to a variety of market indicators, including: the likely significant Federal tax rate increase on long-term capital gains, the level of excess cash reserves on corporate balance sheets, the extremely low interest rates, the pending expiration of significant capital commitments to private equity firms and the velocity and availability of debt financing on commercially reasonable terms. While not all sell side transactions require a seller to engage an investment bank to maximize enterprise value, the general rule is that a competitive process usually results in the highest price and the most favorable terms for a seller. Therefore, sellers that make the decision to hire an investment bank are well advised to go through a methodical selection process as the role of the investment bank (and specific deal team) is critical to the ultimate success of the transaction.

In an opinion that will continue to have far-reaching impact for years to come, the Supreme Court opined on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) on June 28, 2012. The decision did not disappoint in terms of complexity as a deeply divided Court considered two provisions from the ACA: (1) the individual mandate that requires individuals to purchase a minimum level of health insurance coverage as defined in the law and (2) the Medicaid expansion, which provides funds to the states on the condition that they provide specified healthcare services to all citizens whose income falls below a certain threshold. Majorities were reached in each element of the decision by parsing through the majority and the concurring opinions and the dissent, to reach the conclusions on the mandate and the Medicaid expansion.