Features
Five Ways to Eliminate the Need for a Corporate Monitor
Government-imposed corporate monitors — once a rare occurrence in the U.S. — are now commonplace, not only with domestic regulators, but also with regulatory agencies in various other countries, in connection with enforcement proceedings and prosecutions for criminal offenses such as anti-corruption violations and other misconduct.
Features
The False Claims Act Sealing Orders
<b><i>What They Say and Do Not Say</b></i><p><b><i>Part Three of a Three-Part Article</b></i><p>The question remains: Is the defendant in a False Claims Act matter barred from discussing the case, as are the relator and the government?
Columns & Departments
In the Courts
Royal Dutch Shell and Eni Head to Trial over Nigeria Corruption Allegations
Columns & Departments
Business Crimes Hotline
Keppel Settles Bribery Charges in the U.S., Singapore, and Brazil
Features
<i>Ganek v. Leibowitz</i> and a Proposal to Reform Search Warrant Procedure
The Second Circuit recently reversed a district court's determination that federal prosecutors and agents were not entitled to qualified immunity from plaintiffs' <i>Bivens</i> claims for money damages for violations of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments in procuring and executing a search warrant.
Features
DE Courts Uphold Strict Limitations on Liability for Oversight Claims
In 2017, two cases illustrated that Delaware courts continue to impose exacting pleading burdens on <i>Caremark</i> claims, especially when plaintiffs say that they are excused from making a demand on the board before suing derivatively.
Columns & Departments
Business Crimes Hotline
Discussion of two major rulings out of Georgia and New York.
Features
The Deductibility of FCA Payments in Light of <b><i>Kokesh</i></b>
<b><i>A Business Expense?</i></b><p>In negotiating FCA or similar settlements with the government, one key consideration is the tax treatment of any payment. While not in the context of deductibility, the Supreme Court this year, in<i>Kokesh v. SEC</i>, analyzed whether disgorgement in an SEC enforcement action was punitive or compensatory.
Columns & Departments
In the Courts
A rare ruling provides insight into the narrow scope that the attorney-client privilege and attorney work product privilege are afforded in criminal investigations.
Need Help?
- Prefer an IP authenticated environment? Request a transition or call 800-756-8993.
- Need other assistance? email Customer Service or call 1-877-256-2472.
MOST POPULAR STORIES
- Use of Deferred Prosecution Agreements In White Collar InvestigationsThis 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.Read More ›
- The DOJ's Corporate Enforcement Policy: One Year LaterThe 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.Read More ›
- Surveys in Patent Infringement Litigation: The Next FrontierMost experienced intellectual property attorneys understand the significant role surveys play in trademark infringement and other Lanham Act cases, but relatively few are likely to have considered the use of such research in patent infringement matters. That could soon change in light of the recent admission of a survey into evidence in <i>Applera Corporation, et al. v. MJ Research, Inc., et al.</i>, No. 3:98cv1201 (D. Conn. Aug. 26, 2005). The survey evidence, which showed that 96% of the defendant's customers used its products to perform a patented process, was admitted as evidence in support of a claim of inducement to infringe. The court admitted the survey into evidence over various objections by the defendant, who had argued that the inducement claim could not be proven without the survey.Read More ›
- The DOJ's New Parameters for Evaluating Corporate Compliance ProgramsThe 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.Read More ›
- In the SpotlightOn May 9, 2003, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Massachusetts announced that Bayer Corporation, the pharmaceutical manufacturer, had been sentenced and ordered to pay a criminal fine of $5,590,800 stemming from its earlier plea of guilty to violating the Federal Prescription Drug Marketing Act by failing to list with the FDA its drug product, Cipro, that was privately labeled for an HMO. Such listing is required under the federal Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act. The Federal Prescription Drug Marketing Act, Pub. L. 100-293, enacted on April 22, 1988, as modified on August 26, 1992 by the Prescription Drug Amendments (PDA) Pub. L. 102-353, 106 Stat. 941, amended sections 301, 303, 503, and 801 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, codified at 21 U.S.C. '' 331, 333, 353, 381, to establish requirements for distributing prescription drug samples.Read More ›
