Call 855-808-4530 or email GroupSales@alm.com to receive your discount on a new subscription.
On May 29, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Lagos v. United States, 584 U.S. ___ (2018), that corporate victims of criminal offenses cannot recover expenses incurred from internal investigations that the federal government has neither requested nor required under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act of 1996, 18 U.S.C. §3663A (MVRA). In its decision, the Court declined to address whether, going forward, such victims can recover costs from internal investigations initiated at the government’s behest under the statute. Prior to this holding, a number of federal courts held that corporate victims were eligible for restitution for the costs incurred from their internal investigations and referrals to law enforcement — regardless of whether the government requested or required such investigations. These courts ordered restitution to reflect these costs on grounds that internal investigations: 1) are a foreseeable result of the crimes enumerated in the MVRA; and 2) provide invaluable assistance to government investigations and proceedings.
By Stephen Cole
Information governance and the protection of corporate data are top concerns for law firms. To ensure standards are met, some clients are now tying payment to compliance with Outside Counsel Guidelines (OCG).
By Daniel Mayo
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals recently issued a decision that explains some of the requirements for deducting litigation expenses. The facts of the case are bizarre, but the controlling legal principles are not.
By Robert J. Anello and Richard F. Albert
Although increased reliance on technology such as emails and texts has provided greater opportunity to gather evidence of criminal activity, law enforcement agencies around the world complain that encryption technologies make it difficult to catch criminals and terrorists and therefore should be restricted.
By Frank Ready
A new report from the law firm of Pinsent Masons shows that there has been a high level of GDPR "over-reporting" at the U.K.'s Information Commissioner's Office, but organizations who may think they are playing it safe may actually be opening themselves up to further regulatory scrutiny.