Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Concealing Rebates from Franchisee No Violation, But Minnesota Court Rules Earnings Claims Might Be Fraudulent
The U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota has ruled that a tire and oil-change franchisor's failure to disclose rebates that it received from suppliers did not violate the Illinois Franchise Disclosure Act (IFDA) or constitute fraud by omission, but it may have committed fraud under the IFDA and common law by making sales projections that were false and not included in the UFOC as earnings claims. In a separate opinion, the court permitted the franchisee to amend the counterclaim to request punitive damages. Team Tires Plus, Ltd. v. Mark Heartlein, et al., __ F.Supp.2d __, CCH Bus. Fran. Guide Par. 12,820 and __ F.Supp.2d __, CCH Bus. Fran. Guide Par. 12,821 (D.Minn. 2004).
The parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.
The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
This article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.
There is no efficient market for the sale of bankruptcy assets. Inefficient markets yield a transactional drag, potentially dampening the ability of debtors and trustees to maximize value for creditors. This article identifies ways in which investors may more easily discover bankruptcy asset sales.
The Second Circuit affirmed the lower courts' judgment that a "transfer made … in connection with a securities contract … by a qualifying financial institution" was entitled "to the protection of ... §546 (e)'s safe harbor ...."