Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Litigation over the 'total' or 'absolute' pollution exclusion has grown over the past several years. The exclusion typically precludes coverage for any claims resulting from 'actual or threatened discharge, dispersal or release of any Pollutant.' 'Pollutant' is often defined as any type of 'irritant or contaminant,' including, among other things, smoke, soot, fumes, vapors, and chemicals. Despite the seemingly straightforward language of the exclusion, courts are divided over its application.
On one side, some courts hold that the exclusion is unambiguous, is indeed absolute, and applies to any set of facts that comes within its terms. Other courts have concluded that the exclusion is ambiguous and does not apply where the pollution in question goes beyond 'traditional' environmental pollution claims, e.g., landfill leaks and oil spills. Litigants and courts are now struggling with whether the exclusion also encompasses other types of claims that, on their face, would appear to fall within the exclusion's definitions, e.g., lead paint, carbon monoxide poisoning, and other toxic exposure claims (which some courts have deemed 'non-traditional' pollution claims).
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.
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.
When we consider how the use of AI affects legal PR and communications, we have to look at it as an industrywide global phenomenon. A recent online conference provided an overview of the latest AI trends in public relations, and specifically, the impact of AI on communications. Here are some of the key points and takeaways from several of the speakers, who provided current best practices, tips, concerns and case studies.
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.