Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Judge Lewis Kaplan's eloquent and eminently correct decision striking down the Justice Department's policy embodied in the 'Thompson Memo' that pressures corporations, by threat of indictment, to cut off legal fees to 'culpable' employees, was widely publicized and acclaimed. But it may ultimately produce little change in the real world of white-collar criminal defense.
In the specific case ' the KPMG tax fraud prosecution, United States v. Stein, 435 F. Supp. 2d 330, 362 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) ' Judge Kaplan thus far has been unwilling to dismiss the criminal charges because of the government's conduct or order the government to pay the lost fees. Instead, the court attempted to jawbone KPMG into resuming payments. When this failed, the court opened an ancillary civil proceeding that permitted the criminal defendants to sue KPMG for legal fees on the ground that its past practices show an implied agreement to advance legal fees. Every indication is that KPMG will vigorously fight the claim at this month's trial and will appeal if it loses.
The KPMG decisions surely will prompt corporate policy-makers to rethink charter and bylaw provisions and their past practices relating to reimbursement of legal fees to indicted or targeted officers, directors or employees. Companies will be watching to see how Judge Kaplan's rulings fare in the Court of Appeals and whether other courts follow his lead. When asked to advance fees, companies will weigh the risk of being sued if they refuse. But they are likely to conclude that the policy expressed in the Thompson Memo reflects the mindset of current-day federal prosecutors, and that the risk of a lawsuit for fees is far outweighed by the risk of alienating prosecutors by funding the legal defense of their quarry, especially since few plaintiffs are likely to have such strong evidence of government coercion as was presented to Judge Kaplan.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
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
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.
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.
As consumers continue to shift purchasing and consumption habits in the aftermath of the pandemic, manufacturers are increasingly reliant on third-party logistics and warehousing to ensure their products timely reach the market.
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.
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.