Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
American companies, and foreign companies doing business in the United States, routinely collaborate with outside entities in mutually beneficial joint ventures and strategic partnerships. In that process, however, these companies can risk losing protection for their critical trade secrets to outsiders.
Although misappropriation of a trade secret by a joint venture partner is not the most common form of this kind of theft, misappropriation in its various forms is a significant issue in the American business community. The Congressional Research Service estimated in April 2016 that “U.S. companies annually suffer billions of dollars in losses due to the theft of their trade secrets.” In 2013, then-U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder reportedly stated that “there are only two categories of companies affected by trade secret theft: those that know they've been compromised and those that don't know yet.” In fact, in an editorial in Politico earlier this year, U.S. Senators Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and Chris Coons (D-DE) estimated that “trade secrets are worth $5 trillion to the U.S. economy.”
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.
When we consider how the use of AI affects legal PR and communications, we have to look at it as an industrywide global phenomenon. A recent online conference provided an overview of the latest AI trends in public relations, and specifically, the impact of AI on communications. Here are some of the key points and takeaways from several of the speakers, who provided current best practices, tips, concerns and case studies.
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.