Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
In mid-March, the Singapore government passed the Criminal Justice Reform Act, which included legislation regarding the use and mechanics of deferred prosecution agreements (DPA). The agreement between a company and prosecutors — carried out under the supervision of a judge — allows for suspension of prosecution for a defined period of time while the organization meets certain conditions as set forth in the DPA.
In December 2017, enforcement authorities in the United States, Brazil, and Singapore announced a settlement with Singapore-based Keppel Offshore & Marine Ltd. (Keppel Offshore) (and its United States subsidiary) to resolve charges related to bribery in Brazil. The company agreed to pay a total combined penalty of $422 million, of which Singapore received 25% of the amount paid. In part due to the Keppel Offshore settlement, there was a push to revamp Singapore's prior law — the Prevention of Corruption Act — which significantly limited the fines payable by individuals and corporations. As part of a larger criminal justice review, the initial process for potential reform of the Prevention of Corruption Act began in as early as 2014.
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.
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 ...."