Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The workplace. Where is it and what are its boundaries? Of course, it is a location, the place where an employee reports to work and performs services. It also clearly includes a place away from the work site where the employee is assigned to or where the employee performs services. Further, for the telecommuter, a home, or at least certain places in the home, may be considered a work site for purposes of employer liability. In sum, the law has traditionally defined the workplace by means of geography.
In a recent decision, Southern District Judge Marrero adopted, as he put it, a more 'holistic' approach to the question of the scope of the workplace for purposes of hostile environment analysis. Parrish v. Sollecito, 249 F. Supp.2d 342 (S.D.N.Y. 3/14/03). Judge Marrero's approach is worth a further look.
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.
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.
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.
There is no efficient market for the sale of bankruptcy assets. Inefficient markets yield a transactional drag, potentially dampening the ability of debtors and trustees to maximize value for creditors. This article identifies ways in which investors may more easily discover bankruptcy asset sales.
The Second Circuit affirmed the lower courts' judgment that a "transfer made … in connection with a securities contract … by a qualifying financial institution" was entitled "to the protection of ... §546 (e)'s safe harbor ...."