Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Recent Fallout from Corporate Cooperation
Ever since the indictment and demise of Arthur Andersen in 2002, the stakes for businesses under governmental scrutiny could not be higher. The pressure on companies to cooperate and reach agreement with government investigators is no longer simply a matter of “doing the right thing,” but has become a practical necessity for survival. Issues being litigated in two high-profile cases right now — one involving the Enron Task Force's prosecution of Messrs. Lay, Skilling and Causey, and the other involving an investigation by the Connecticut Attorney General's office into corporate governance issues at Mass Mutual — are exposing severe pressure points, and potentially serious breaking points, in the current realm of corporate cooperation.
The Enron Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
In early September, the individual Enron defendants filed a pre-trial motion charging that the Enron Task Force was engaged in serious acts of misconduct by directly and indirectly denying the individual defendants access to fact witnesses. In part, the motion charges that the prosecution has threatened potential government witnesses with possible prosecution should they agree to meet with defense counsel. According to the defense motion, the government maintains a non-public list of more than 100 unindicted co-conspirators, virtually none of whom has been willing to meet with the defense. (The briefing on the motion is ongoing, and the parties have attempted to resolve the issue of witness access via a form letter from the court to potential witnesses.) A wholly separate prong of the motion turns on the “acceptance of responsibility” provisions contained in cooperation and deferred prosecution agreements that the Task Force entered into in 2003 with two financial institutions that did business with Enron.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
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
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
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.
The Article 8 Opt In
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.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
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.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?