Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
In the Courts
On Feb. 27, 2013, the United States Supreme Court unanimously rejected an argument advanced by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) that the so-called “discovery rule” would apply to civil penalties cases involving fraud, such that the statute of limitations would not begin to run until the fraud was discovered. The case, Gabelli v. Securities and Exchange Commission, 133 S.Ct. 1216 (2013), involved an SEC civil penalties case in which the petitioners were sued by the SEC with respect to fraud allegations under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940.
The Investment Advisers Act makes it illegal for investment advisers to defraud their clients, and allows the SEC to seek civil penalties through an enforcement action against investment advisers who violate the Act. In a 2008 complaint, the petitioners, a portfolio manager and chief operating officer of an investment advisory firm, were alleged to have aided and abetted fraud between 1999 until 2002 by allowing one investor in the fund they advised to covertly engage in a trading strategy that would harm other investors in exchange for investing in a hedge fund run by one of the petitioners. Id. at 1217-19.
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
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.
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.
CLE Shouldn't Be the Only Mandatory Training for Attorneys
Each stage of an attorney's career offers opportunities for a curriculum that addresses both the individual's and the firm's need to drive success.
Discovery of Claim Construction and Infringement Analysis May be Compelled Prior to a Markman Hearing
A defendant in a patent infringement suit may, during discovery and prior to a <i>Markman</i> hearing, compel the plaintiff to produce claim charts, claim constructions, and element-by-element infringement analyses.