Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
On Feb. 18, 2005, after the first bill signing ceremony of the year, President Bush approved the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”) by signing it into law. CAFA is part of a goal to restore common sense and balance to America's legal system and end frivolous litigation which, President Bush stated, will include legislation to further reform tort law in the areas of asbestos and medical malpractice. “President Signs Class-Action Fairness Act of 2005,” www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/02/20050218-11.html.
Prior to becoming law, it passed both the House and Senate by wide margins and is the second law to be passed in recent years to aid in the effort to prevent the abuse of state courts by plaintiffs' counsel. The first was the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act (“SLUSA”), which became law in 1998 and was designed to prevent plaintiffs' lawyers from dodging the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act by filing securities fraud suits in state courts.
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.
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.
Each stage of an attorney's career offers opportunities for a curriculum that addresses both the individual's and the firm's need to drive success.
A defendant in a patent infringement suit may, during discovery and prior to a <i>Markman</i> hearing, compel the plaintiff to produce claim charts, claim constructions, and element-by-element infringement analyses.