Re: Approved

[Steve Krulin <webmaster@tropic-lawyer.com>]

At 10:44 PM 12/29/1998 -0500, MS SHELLEY V CORBIN wrote:
> At this point, it makes no difference who is to blame
> why do you say 18 months? you think the situation will be worked out 
> by june 2000?
>
>or who is responsible for the Y2K fiasco.  We can worry
> about that after we get through the next 18 months.
>
> The issue today is how to get through the next 18 months.

I am afraid that both issues (getting through the next period of time
and who is to blame) are important but for different reasons

Getting through the next period (12, 18 or 24 months) is, in a sense,
a given. But

Should the results of Y2k failures be more than minimal, than there
will be injure to either persons or property or both. In those cases
who is responsible will become most important.

An essential portion of (business) contingency planning must be the
legal ramifications of Y2k decisions past and present. As an example:
If it becomes apparent that the legal liability of an organization
"will become" insurmountable post Y2k, does the fiduciary duty to the
stockholders indicate liquidating in 1999 while there is still
"worth"?

As we see, there are already many many threads to this Y2k quandry and
more are to be revealed.

By the way, the latest edition of The Computer Law Journal is (mostly)
available at <http://www.computer.flabar.org/nov98>. Private comments
are invited as well as suggestions for articles.

Happy New Year and warm regards from sunny Miami (76F)

steve krulin. esq.
editor, computer law journal of the Florida Bar.
director, Law and Technology Partners, Inc.
305-891-6545
editor@tropic-lawyer.com