Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
These are challenging times for those of us who represent and defend corporations in litigation. The recent criminal convictions of Enron's Ken Lay and Jeffrey Skilling only confirm what we have known for quite some time ' jurors are skeptical of, and even hostile toward, corporations and corporate executives.
But in order to formulate an effective defense strategy, it is important to understand why jurors hold these attitudes. Dr. Ross Laguzza, a jury consultant with R&D Strategic Solutions, LLC, explains that jurors are rarely motivated by anger: 'In all the conversations I have had with real and surrogate jurors who are punitive, I would estimate that less than 10% were ever punishing out of anger.' Instead, he says, jurors are motivated by fear: 'Many people are afraid of an unsafe world and look to those who appear to be powerful to protect them from risk. Large corporations are perceived to have the resources necessary to accurately predict the future and stave off unwanted risks.' When jurors see a big company that has failed to protect others, or has used its immense power to harm others, fear drives their decision. As Laguzza explains: 'The important thing here is that it is not an intellectual analysis people do when they judge companies, it is an emotional one which is difficult to counter with cold facts and points of law. Understanding that safety concerns (even in non product cases) drive most jury verdicts is the key to discovering effective defense strategy.' Jurors also hold all big companies to high standards, and punish those that do not meet them. Even a company with a good public image may not be able to avoid punitive damages. 'Companies with strong positive images are often held to unrealistic standards of performance because jurors believe extraordinary performance is consistent with the company's stated values. Jurors often punish companies they think are good because they feel the company needs a reminder,' Laguzza explains.
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.