Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
In almost every respect, e-discovery falls squarely in the domain of attorneys ' inside counsel, outside counsel and experts. Essentially, it is the business process for litigation, regulatory matters and internal investigations. So why is IT involved in almost every situation? The answer is quite simple: because IT must be involved. Today, the information used and relied upon by attorneys is digital. Documents created by users (custodians) that are a part of litigation or regulatory matters live and die in electronic form and are stored on information systems ' managed, serviced and controlled in large part by IT.
But with law firms and corporations tightening budget belts, IT organizations that are supporting legal teams to preserve and gather (collect) data are tempted to perform those tasks in ways that do not meet the standards required by the current legal rules.
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 ...."