Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Audit clauses are standard in almost every license agreement. They typically provide that the licensor has the right to review the licensee's records related to the sale of licensed products at least once a year. They also usually provide that if the auditor finds an underpayment of a certain scale (usually around 5%) then the licensee is responsible for the costs of the audit.
The audit clause is a necessary means for the licensor to protect its interests and to guard against unscrupulous licensees. But it is a mistake to think that the clause is there solely to prevent malfeasance. Licensors have discovered that audit clauses can be a source of additional revenue. An audit is literally a way to make licensees pay for their mistakes. And sometimes those mistakes can be costly.
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
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.