Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Pennsylvania Choice of Law Clause Works in California
In Portnoy v. Dollar Financial Corp., Bus. Franchise Guide (CCH), 14, 252 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 11, 2009), a We The People franchisee sued the franchisor and parent companies in California. The franchise agreement had a Pennsylvania choice-of-law provision because the franchisor and parent were Pennsylvania companies. It also had an arbitration agreement requiring arbitration in Pennsylvania. Under the arbitration clause, the arbitrator's authority was limited to the extent he or she could not extend, modify, or suspend the terms of the agreement or stay, rescind, or postpone any termination. Further, damages were limited to actual damages; no others, including punitive damages or lost profits, could be awarded. The franchisor moved to compel arbitration, and the franchisee argued that the arbitration agreement was unconscionable because it required arbitration in Pennsylvania, contrary to the California Franchise Relations Act, and because of the two other provisions discussed above. The court granted the motion and upheld the arbitration provision based on Pennsylvania law.
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.
This article explores legal developments over the past year that may impact compliance officer personal liability.
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.