Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Editor's note: In this edition, we offer the second of a two-part article on the challenge of financial experts as witnesses in cases in which e-discovery is relevant. In Part 1, which appeared in the February edition of e-Discovery Law & Strategy, our expert author from PricewaterhouseCoopers provided an overview of how a financial expert can help counsel in e-discovery and litigation strategy. In this month's article, Michael LoGiudice examines instances of financial experts being challenged and excluded from cases ' and how to avoid exclusion. We reprint the first two sections of February's article for background and continuity. Click here to see the February article.
The well-known Daubert case was decided in 1993. Kumho Tire was decided in 1999. Challenges to financial experts under the rules outlined by Daubert and Kumho Tire are increasing.
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.
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.
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.
There is no efficient market for the sale of bankruptcy assets. Inefficient markets yield a transactional drag, potentially dampening the ability of debtors and trustees to maximize value for creditors. This article identifies ways in which investors may more easily discover bankruptcy asset sales.
Active reading comprises many daily tasks lawyers engage in, including highlighting, annotating, note taking, comparing and searching texts. It demands more than flipping or turning pages.