Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Esoteric and arcane, the financial contract provisions of the new Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 — those dealing with repurchase agreements, securities contracts, swap agreements, forward and commodity contracts — have been given short shrift by a mainstream media focused on the more “newsworthy” consumer provisions of that legislation. However, to bankruptcy practitioners focusing on larger commercial cases or involved in the capital markets, these amendments are important and deserve a close look.
Although generally described as simply adding netting provisions to the Bankruptcy Code, the amendments, which are set forth in Sections 901 through 911 of the legislation, do much more. They build upon and expand the network of safe-harbor protections previously granted in the Bankruptcy Code to qualifying parties in qualifying financial transactions from time to time since the Bankruptcy Code became law in 1978. Netting is one element of this expansion. Both the existing provisions and these new amendments are consistent with the long-espoused goals of financial regulators, such as the Federal Reserve and the SEC, to eliminate potential risks to the international financial system that would otherwise result from the collapse of a major market participant. The amendments update and expand existing law in recognition of the continued evolution of the capital markets since the last significant change to these safe harbors over 10 years ago.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
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.
When we consider how the use of AI affects legal PR and communications, we have to look at it as an industrywide global phenomenon. A recent online conference provided an overview of the latest AI trends in public relations, and specifically, the impact of AI on communications. Here are some of the key points and takeaways from several of the speakers, who provided current best practices, tips, concerns and case studies.
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.