Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Corporate Cooperation: What it Now Means for Companies and Employees
The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has achieved record-setting penalties. In August 2014, the DOJ announced a nearly $17 billion settlement with Bank of America relating to the financial problems of 2008 ' the largest civil settlement with a single company in American history. Unprecedented penalties were imposed also on: 1) BNP Paribas ' $8.9 billion for money laundering; 2) Alcoa World Alumina ' $384 million for Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) violations; and 3) Lloyds Banking Group ' $86 million for antitrust violations. Despite these results, the DOJ has been criticized for a lack of individual prosecutions, particularly in the financial sector and for FCPA violations. A recent series of speeches from senior DOJ officials responded with a renewed emphasis on the prosecution of individuals responsible for corporate misconduct. These speeches are a signal to corporate counsel to stress the importance of, and actions needed for, corporate cooperation and self-disclosure.
Policy Announcements from the DOJ
In the past months, when senior DOJ officials discussed self-disclosures and cooperation with investigations, the common theme has been increasing prosecutions of individuals. In a Sept. 17, 2014, speech, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division Marshall Miller said that “[v]oluntary disclosure of corporate misconduct does not constitute true cooperation, if the company avoids identifying the individuals who are criminally responsible. Even the identification of culpable individuals is not true cooperation, if the company fails to locate and provide facts and evidence at their disposal that implicate those individuals.” AAG Miller speech, Sept. 17, 2014, New York.
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.
The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?