Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Superstorm Sandy, which struck the East Coast in October 2012, is estimated to have caused $19 billion in private insurance losses and an additional $12-to-$15 billion in losses covered by the National Flood Insurance Program. In the immediate aftermath of the disaster, Governor Andrew Cuomo and Department of Financial Services Superintendent Ben Lawsky in New York, and Governor Chris Christie in New Jersey, promulgated a number of emergency measures that effectively rewrote insurance coverage in their states. This “stroke of the pen” altered existing policies in significant ways and put insurers on notice going forward that elected officials and regulators may respond to natural disasters by unilaterally and retroactively changing the rules of the game. Indeed, New York's Department of Financial Services (“NYDFS”) has stated as much in a recent circular letter describing the “post-disaster regulatory measures” it may take in the future, including a moratorium on policy cancellations and non-renewals and expedited handling of claims.
Aftermath of Sandy
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.
When we consider how the use of AI affects legal PR and communications, we have to look at it as an industrywide global phenomenon. A recent online conference provided an overview of the latest AI trends in public relations, and specifically, the impact of AI on communications. Here are some of the key points and takeaways from several of the speakers, who provided current best practices, tips, concerns and case studies.
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.