Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
We have reached a certain level of maturation within the world of social media. Some social networks have thrived, while others have floundered. Google+, despite its initial buzz, has proven to be a bust, marked by high-profile personnel exits and service uncouplings, including YouTube. Meanwhile, Twitter has been faltering as of late, with reports that revenue is shrinking and users are becoming disengaged.
At the same time, newer platforms, particularly Instagram and Snapchat, are gaining dominance, due in part to a younger demographic that appears to be more enticed by filtered images and short videos than text and links to articles. In fact, as of this writing, Snapchat boasts 100 million daily active users, though it is estimated that only 18% of U.S. social media users are on the platform.
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.
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.
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.
The Second Circuit affirmed the lower courts' judgment that a "transfer made … in connection with a securities contract … by a qualifying financial institution" was entitled "to the protection of ... §546 (e)'s safe harbor ...."