Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The indictment against your client reads in relevant part as follows: "In or about and between January 2019 and February 2020, the defendants, JOHN DOE and JANE DOE, co-owners of Acme Technology Co., made materially false and misleading statements and omissions to investors regarding, among other things, (i) the current and future revenues of Acme; (ii) the sales forecasts for Acme's main product; (iii) the amount of debt on Acme's balance sheet; and (iv) the executive compensation owed to the defendants." Such broadly worded charges, which describe the nature of the crime but do not identify specific misstatements, are common in fraud prosecutions.
How can counsel effectively defend against alleged false and misleading statements when the substance and timing of the statements are described only in general terms? The problem is especially acute because the defense may turn not simply on whether a given statement was false but also on what the speaker knew and believed at the specific time the statement was made.
The most obvious procedural move is to seek a bill of particulars, which, if granted, would require the government to provide such "particulars" as the substance and timing of the statements at issue. But success on a motion for particulars is highly uncertain. Courts frequently deny particulars in fraud prosecutions, holding that an indictment that provides the general categories of false statements, together with discovery or other pre-trial disclosures by the government, is sufficient to satisfy the demands of due process.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
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
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.
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.
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.
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?