Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Independent Corporate Investigations
In this age of regulatory and prosecutorial focus on corporate compliance, companies increasingly are relying on special outside counsel to conduct internal investigations into potential wrongdoing. Sometimes, these investigations are prophylactic: A company may want to understand the consequences of its current hiring practices so it can develop standard operating procedures to better ensure compliance with anti-discrimination laws. Because this sort of proactive, self-reflective investigation generally proceeds without outside scrutiny, counsel has the time and space to conduct a deliberate investigation.
Other times, outside counsel are retained to investigate suspicions or allegations of wrongdoing by or within the company. These investigations may proceed under a growing threat of ' or pursuant to ' government inquiry and rising investor and employee fear and confusion. One of the company's primary goals in retaining investigatory counsel is to conduct a fair, thorough and complete investigation so it can assure investors, regulators and employees that it has discovered the extent of any problems that exist and has a plan not only to correct them but to prevent their recurrence.
Whether the company succeeds in providing these assurances depends in significant part on the degree of confidence these groups have in the outside counsel conducting the investigation. One thing is certain: unless they trust that the investigation was truly an independent one, they are not likely to have faith in its outcome. Such a lack of faith can have devastating consequences for the company: valuable employees distrustful of management may leave, investors may pull their support, and regulators may disregard the results of the internal investigation and decide to conduct their own, disrupting the company and further undermining the investing public's faith in it. If regulators feel that the investigation was deliberately compromised by the lack of independence, they may decide to investigate the company and its senior management further.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
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
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
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.
The Article 8 Opt In
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.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
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.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
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?