Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The California Supreme Court has thrown a wrench into the California trial courts' long-accepted practice of enforcing contractual jury waivers by holding that such pre-dispute waivers do not effectively supersede a party's constitutional right to a jury trial. The court's conclusion is not surprising given the express provisions of the California Constitution, but it nonetheless sent a shockwave through the finance and leasing community.
In a unanimous opinion, the California high court held in Grafton Partners v. Superior Court (PricewaterhouseCoopers), [2005 DJDAR 9387 (Cal. Aug. 4, 2005)] that in the absence of any legislation expressly permitting parties to waive their constitutional right to a jury trial prior to the commencement of a lawsuit, pre-dispute jury waivers contained in contracts cannot be enforced by California trial courts. When parties to a contract have their disputes resolved in the courts of California, the California Constitution accords them the right to a jury trial, which can only be waived “by consent of the parties expressed as prescribed by statute.” (Cal. Const. art. I '16.) After considering the arguments of defendant PricewaterhouseCoopers, as well as the arguments presented in amicus briefs filed by 11 different organizations in favor of jury waivers, that California Code of Civil Procedure section 631 permits pre-dispute contractual jury waivers, the high court, applying established rules of statutory interpretation, found section 631 applies only to jury waivers made after a dispute arises between the parties and does not prescribe a method or right to waive a jury trial prior to a dispute arising between the parties.
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.