Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
A company that finds itself the target of a federal fraud investigation often faces the fraught question of whether it may, or even must, disclose the existence of that investigation to third parties, such as its investors, shareholders, major creditors, or insurers. The question can be even more complicated if that investigation is being pursued under the False Claims Act and arises as the result of a sealed qui tam complaint. The Department of Justice (DOJ) takes the position that all parties — itself included — are bound by the seal, and therefore may not disclose the existence or nature of the underlying qui tam suit to anyone.
But the DOJ's position, as applied to defendants at least, does not square well with the law. While a whistleblower who brings a False Claims Act suit is both bound and gagged by the seal, the defendant arguably may not be.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
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.