Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
On Aug. 17, 2009, in Goyette v GlaxoSmithKline, Inc., Justice Mark G. Peacock of the Quebec Superior Court ruled in favor of the respondent GlaxoSmithKline Inc (GSK), dismissing a motion for authorization to institute a class action made by the petitioner on behalf of all persons residing in Canada who allegedly experienced dependency and withdrawal problems as a result of using the antidepressant marketed under the name Paxil.
The petitioner contended that GSK had:
Accordingly, she claimed compensation on behalf of the members for physical, economic and moral damages suffered, and claimed punitive damages as well. The court refused to allow a class action to be brought, on the basis that the three tests set out in paragraphs (a), (b) and (d) of Article 1003 of the Code of Civil Procedure had not been met.
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.
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.
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 ...."