Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The Yates Memo, Corporate Cooperation and Attorney-Client Privilege
On Sept. 9, 2015, U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) Deputy Attorney General Sally Q. Yates issued a memorandum titled “Individual Accountability for Corporate Wrongdoing” (the “Yates Memo”). It announced the DOJ's corporate cooperation policy requiring disclosure of “all relevant facts about individual[s]” before the DOJ will consider awarding the company any credit for cooperation that may reduce the company's civil or criminal penalties. The Yates Memo mandated that federal prosecutors follow certain guiding principles, including: 1) focusing on individuals, from the inception of the government investigation, regardless of whether the investigation is civil or criminal; 2) increasing collaboration between fellow civil and criminal DOJ attorneys; 3) ensuring that no resolution of a corporate investigation should protect individuals from liability, absent extraordinary circumstances; 4) providing a clear plan to resolve individual cases before the statute of limitations expires; and 5) for civil DOJ attorneys, focusing on individuals, regardless of their ability to pay.
Even though the Yates Memo proclaims that it does not change existing DOJ policy, it raises concerns about the DOJ's view of the attorney-client privilege. On Nov. 16, 2015, in a speech in Washington DC, Yates explained that companies seeking cooperation credit “must provide all non-privileged information about individual wrongdoing.” (Deputy Attorney General Sally Q. Yates, Remarks at American Banking Association and American Bar Association Money Laundering Enforcement Conference (Nov. 16, 2015)). She commented that companies are not required to waive the attorney-client privilege or work product doctrine for interview memos to receive cooperation credit. However, Yates emphasized that to “earn cooperation credit, the corporation does need to produce all relevant facts ' including the facts learned through those interviews ' unless identical information has already been provided.” Id.
Prior Deputy Attorneys' General Memoranda
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?