Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Motivational speakers often say, “If you keep on doing what you've always done, you'll keep on getting what you've always got.” In the context of forensic custody evaluations, this maxim could be paraphrased for the benefit of the courts: “If you keep on accepting shoddy work-product, you'll keep on getting shoddy work-product.” In L.R. v. T.R., NYLJ, Oct. 29, 2010, the trial judge made it clear that such deficient work-product is not welcome in his courtroom. His decision provides a guiding beacon for identifying a number of forensic errors that are frequently encountered but often overlooked. It is, therefore, eminently instructive for custody courts, attorneys, and evaluators.
Facts
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 ...."