Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
GA High Court Upholds Insurer Right to Consent to Settlement
The Supreme Court of Georgia, applying state law, has ruled in a unanimous decision that a policyholder's complaint against its insurer seeking coverage for amounts paid to settle an underlying lawsuit and alleging bad faith was properly dismissed on the grounds that the policyholder settled the underlying lawsuit without its insurer's consent. Piedmont Office Realty Trust, Inc. v. XL Specialty Insurance Co., No. S15Q0418 (Ga. Apr. 20, 2015). In so holding, the court rejected the policyholder's argument that the insurer's consent was not required because the insurer allegedly withheld such consent unreasonably and in bad faith. The court also rejected the policyholder's argument that court approval of the underlying settlement transformed the settlement into a “legal obligation to pay.”
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.
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 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.
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.
Active reading comprises many daily tasks lawyers engage in, including highlighting, annotating, note taking, comparing and searching texts. It demands more than flipping or turning pages.