Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
It's a common scenario. You're representing the target in a federal securities fraud investigation. The U.S. Attorney's Office in Manhattan is ready to charge your client and the prosecutor asks if your client wants to cut a deal. Exhausted by the lengthy investigation and close to broke, your client wonders: “If I plead guilty, how much time will I get?” While you answer the best you can, you quickly add that only the sentencing judge can say for sure. “Well,” your client asks, “can't we at least pin down the government on its position on sentencing so I know what my likely worst-case scenario is?”
Unfortunately, in most cases you can't provide real comfort for your client. While the government almost certainly will give you an estimate of your client's sentencing exposure as part of the plea process, recent cases in the Second Circuit make clear that the government is unlikely to be bound by that estimate. And, once your client pleads guilty, he likely will be unable to withdraw his plea even if his sentence is much worse than what the government estimated before sentencing. To understand the risks that defendants face, we first need to explain why the government provides sentencing estimates at all.
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.
There's current litigation in the ongoing Beach Boys litigation saga. A lawsuit filed in 2019 against Nevada residents Mike Love and his wife Jacquelyne in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada that alleges inaccurate payment by the Loves under the retainer agreement and seeks $84.5 million in damages.
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.
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.
The real property transfer tax does not apply to all leases, and understanding the tax rules of the applicable jurisdiction can allow parties to plan ahead to avoid unnecessary tax liability.