Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Judicial Oversight of Corporate Deferred Prosecution Agreements
Earlier this year, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and a subsidiary of a Dutch aerospace technology company, Fokker Services B.V. (Fokker), reached an agreement to resolve charges that the company had conspired to unlawfully export goods originated in the United States to Iran, Burma, and Sudan ' countries on the U.S. sanctions list. The terms of the agreement were unremarkable: Fokker would pay a fine equal to the profits it earned in the unlawful export transactions, implement a compliance program, and comply with U.S. export laws for 18 months. If Fokker met the terms of the deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) for the period of deferral, the criminal charges that were to be filed in federal court along with the DPA would be dismissed. As is the case for virtually all corporate prosecutions in the United States, the matter appeared to have been resolved by settlement.
United States District Judge Richard Leon of the District of D.C. had a different view. In United States v. Fokker Services B.V., ' F. Supp. 3d ', 2015 WL 729291 (D.D.C. Feb. 5, 2015), Judge Leon rejected the terms of the DPA. In his view, the agreement did not impose a sufficient punishment for the level of misconduct engaged in by the company. The decision has obvious effects on the government's case against Fokker, but it also could have repercussions that extend far beyond the case, including the potential to alter DOJ's policy on deferred prosecution agreements; the creation of critical uncertainty for white collar defense practitioners; and the raising of interesting questions about the role of the judiciary in corporate criminal negotiations and settlements.
United States v. HSBC Bank
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?