Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
As has been widely publicized, on May 16 a Florida state court jury awarded $604.3 million in compensatory damages and later an additional $850 million in punitive damages to Coleman Holdings Inc., the camping-gear maker formerly owned by billionaire investor Ronald Perelman, in Coleman's fraud suit against powerhouse investment banker Morgan Stanley & Co. The verdict was notable not only because of its size, but also because of how it came about.
Shortly before the trial, after nearly 2 years of litigation, Judge Elizabeth Maass issued a partial default judgment against Morgan Stanley for what she characterized as a repeated failure to produce e-mails requested by Perelman during discovery. Judge Maass indicated that she would affirmatively instruct the jury to assume that Morgan Stanley had participated in a fraud. At the beginning of the trial, Judge Maass did exactly that; telling the jury that it was to assume that “Morgan Stanley participated in a scheme to mislead (Coleman) and others and to cover up massive fraud.” Though Perelman still needed to prove that he relied on Morgan Stanley, the judge's extraordinary instruction rendered an adverse verdict against Morgan Stanley a fait accompli.
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.