Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
A federal district court's recent summary judgment decision in In re: Brican America, LLC Equipment Lease Litigation, 2013 WL 3967920 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 1, 2013), appears to be a mixed bag for vendor finance companies. In Brican, a high-profile multi-district litigation arising out of alleged equipment lease fraud, the court both granted in part and denied in part, a lessor's motion for summary judgment on what the court termed the “jugular” issue in the case. Those issues involved the interplay between standard “hell or high water” provisions contained in the applicable lease agreements and “Cancellation” clauses inserted into contemporaneous “Marketing Agreements” between the vendor and its customers. The court's decision provides a learning opportunity for vendor finance companies.
Factual Background
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.
This article explores legal developments over the past year that may impact compliance officer personal liability.