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
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.
Why is it that those who are best skilled at advocating for others are ill-equipped at advocating for their own skills and what to do about it?
Active reading comprises many daily tasks lawyers engage in, including highlighting, annotating, note taking, comparing and searching texts. It demands more than flipping or turning pages.
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.
Blockchain domain names offer decentralized alternatives to traditional DNS-based domain names, promising enhanced security, privacy and censorship resistance. However, these benefits come with significant challenges, particularly for brand owners seeking to protect their trademarks in these new digital spaces.