Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
In the post-Enron era, corporate counsel are seeing more government investigations that lead to 'deferred prosecution agreements' (DPAs). In these arrangements, the government formally accuses a company of criminal conduct, but agrees to hold the prosecution in abeyance pending the company's efforts to make amends. These cases include such well-known names as KPMG, Computer Asso-ciates and Bristol Myers Squibb.
Why are these settlements suddenly coming onto the scene? In a sense, they are not entirely new. The reality of the corporate world is that major companies simply do not go to trial on criminal matters. Before DPAs, there were various forms of consent decrees, settlement agreements and corporate integrity agreements. The latest variation comes partly from a reference in the Thompson Memorandum advising federal prosecutors to consider this tool. From the government's perspective, these agreements provide enormous ongoing leverage: The company has agreed to what the government wants, it has admitted on the record that it engaged in wrongdoing, and any violation allows the government to use the company's admissions without new charges being filed. Companies avoid the uncertainty of trial, destructive publicity and the diversion of management's attention that comes with battling criminal charges. But what are the implications of this trend and the questions we should be asking?
Who Is Paying?
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
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?