Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
It's probably not a stretch to say that e-mail has been the single biggest factor in the creation of the electronic discovery industry as we know it today.
e-Mail, as a relatively new type of information medium, has always been incredibly valuable in a discovery context. It has a number of relatively unique attributes that make it almost singularly useful in establishing timelines and the mission-critical important litigation concept of “who knew what, when?”. This is because e-mail is laden with tons of useful metadata (data about data) such as “to/from” information, sent/received times, cc/bcc information, read receipts, forwarding information, etc. All of this metadata is then organized in a structured database of sorts (Outlook, most commonly) that easily permits custodian-level analysis, which is often the cornerstone of modern e-discovery efforts. In response to this treasure trove of information, numerous companies have created software applications to better harness the power of e-mail by reconstructing e-mail threads, adding in ways to detect duplicates/near duplicates and identifying missing participants to e-mail conversations and the like.
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 ...."