Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
In mid-October, e-Discovery Law & Strategy's parent company, ALM, joined with the Business Development Institute (BDI) to offer ALM's first e-discovery conference in New York City. The faculty featured several e-discovery luminaries ' here are some highlights in case you missed it.
U. S. Magistrate Judge James C. Francis IV ' who wrote the seminal decision of Rowe Entertainment, Inc. v. William Morris Agency, 205 F.R.D. 421 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) ' started his keynote address by stating his concern that the debate over e-discovery issues has become “unnecessarily partisan.” In his eyes, plaintiffs ask for too much too often, and defendants are too possessive of their clients' material. Both sides, he said, need to move toward the middle ground. e-Discovery issues need not take the time and expense they have, if both sides agree to resolve issues amicably.
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.
Active reading comprises many daily tasks lawyers engage in, including highlighting, annotating, note taking, comparing and searching texts. It demands more than flipping or turning pages.