Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Protecting Counsel Privilege in a Post-Yates Memo World
Editor's note: In last month's newsletter, the authors put forward the proposition that attorney-client privilege issues, which can arise during internal investigations, have become even more complicated following the issuance of the Department of Justice's (DOJ) “Yates Memorandum.” The memo, which takes its name from Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, is an update to the DOJ's Principles of Federal Prosecution of Business Organization, found within the United States Attorney's Manual (USAM). To set the stage, the authors went back 17 years to review the history of DOJ policy announcements concerning the prosecution of business organizations, from 1999's Holder Memo through to the 2008's Filip Memo. They continue their discussion herein.
The Yates Memo (2015)
The Filip Memo's changes remained undisturbed until Sept. 9, 2015, when Deputy Attorney General Yates issued a new memorandum revising the DOJ's policy in corporate investigations. The Yates Memo set out “six key steps” intended to enhance the DOJ's effort to identify culpable individuals in corporate cases, specifically: 1) To qualify for any cooperation credit, a company must disclose all relevant facts about culpable individuals; 2) Criminal and civil investigations will focus on individuals from the start; 3) Criminal and civil investigators should routinely communicate; 4) Absent extraordinary circumstances, DOJ will not release individuals from liability as part of a corporate resolution; 5) Corporate cases should not be resolved unless individual cases can be resolved before the statute of limitations; and 6) In civil cases, attorneys should focus on individuals and determine whether to bring suit regardless of ability to pay.
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.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?