Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Jurisdiction Considerations in French/U.S. Divorce
The international mobility of spouses and the increase in binational couples (sometimes with each spouse having dual citizenship) has heightened the jurisdictional questions at stake during a divorce: One spouse may enjoy advantages over the other, depending on which jurisdiction handles the matter. The first reaction international divorce lawyers have, then, when dealing with mobile or dual citizen couples is to be the first to file a petition with the national court of choice.
The advantages found in one jurisdiction over another could stem, for example, from the level of maintenance typically awarded or the conflict of law rules used by such jurisdiction to determine the matrimonial property regime (separation of assets, separation of assets with equitable distribution, civil law community property, etc.). In Europe, the race for jurisdiction is so neck-and-neck that counsel can be found liable if the court clerk fails to specify the hour the petition was filed in addition to the date. Cour de cassation [French Supreme Court], 1st civil chamber, 11 June 2008, No. 06-20.042. Being the first to file enables the most diligent spouse to invoke the rule of lis alibi pendens, which allows the court petitioned second to refuse to exercise jurisdiction when facing parallel litigation in another country. This refusal is mandatory for courts of Member States of the European Union when the court petitioned first is situated in a fellow Member State. (Article 19 of the Brussels II bis Regulation of November 27th 2003, clearly states that “where proceedings relating to divorce, legal separation or marriage annulment between the same parties are brought before courts of different Member States, the court second seized [petitioned] shall of its own motion stay its proceedings until such time as the jurisdiction of the court fist seized is established.”)
The DOJ's Corporate Enforcement Policy: One Year Later
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.
Use of Deferred Prosecution Agreements In White Collar 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.
How AI Has Affected PR
When we consider how the use of AI affects legal PR and communications, we have to look at it as an industrywide global phenomenon. A recent online conference provided an overview of the latest AI trends in public relations, and specifically, the impact of AI on communications. Here are some of the key points and takeaways from several of the speakers, who provided current best practices, tips, concerns and case studies.
The DOJ's New Parameters for Evaluating Corporate Compliance Programs
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.