Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
I've seen too many files squeeze in right under a filing or courier deadline. Everything is in order, the document content, footnotes, citations, and your tables. Just prior to, or after clicking the final Save, Send or Print, the Table of Authorities (“TOA”) and Table of Contents (“TOC”) are updated: The tables fall apart, page numbering is incorrect, text mysteriously appears or disappears from within the table, and formatting takes on a whole new look (and not for the better). I don't see this scenario changing much. Last-minute edits are the nature of the beast. I won't even go into the frayed nerves! What can change is understanding why the tables “fell apart” in the first place, and how to get that file out the door in an acceptable format. You can worry about fixing the file at a later time.
TOA Text
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.
The Second Circuit affirmed the lower courts' judgment that a "transfer made … in connection with a securities contract … by a qualifying financial institution" was entitled "to the protection of ... §546 (e)'s safe harbor ...."