Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The pattern playing out in the current economic crisis is familiar: With financial collapse and scandal, the public is insisting that corporate executives be held accountable and Congress is pressing the Sentencing Commission to ensure sentences for economic offenses are sufficiently severe.
The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Pub.L. 111-203, H.R. 4173), which was signed into law in July 2010, directs the Commission to review and amend the Sentencing Guidelines for certain fraud offenses, just as Sarbanes-Oxley did ten years ago. The Commission's Sarbanes-Oxley amendments led to fraud sentences exponentially greater than the sentences under the original Guidelines Manual, and a similar result will likely follow from Dodd-Frank.
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 ...."