Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
A New York appellate court has refused to enforce a separation agreement that allowed a father to terminate child-support payments to his ex-wife if their teen-aged son “engag[ed] in full-time employment.” Enforcement of the agreement would run afoul of both precedent and pubic policy, the unanimous Appellate Division, First Department, panel concluded. Justice John W. Sweeny Jr. wrote for the unanimous panel in Thomas B. v. Lydia D., 09-06789:
[T]he parties cannot contract away the duty of child support. 'Despite the fact that a separation agreement is entitled to the solemnity and obligation of a contract, when children's rights are involved the contract yields to the welfare of the children. The duty of a parent to support his or her child 'shall not be eliminated or diminished by the terms of a separation agreement,' nor can it be abrogated by contract.
Background
Petitioner Thomas B. initiated the present action for downward modification, pro se, against his former wife, Lydia D., in November 2006. Thomas B. sought, among other things, the termination of his child support obligations, on the grounds that the couple's son, Timothy, worked 35 hours per week at a record store. Per the terms of the couple's divorce agreement, which defined emancipation as, inter alia, “engaging in full-time employment,” Timothy was now emancipated, Thomas B. argued.
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 ...."