Follow Us
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
It would be a surprise to many, but it has been common knowledge to criminal practitioners for years, that a criminal defendant’s sentence for a crime which they have been convicted can be increased based on consideration of conduct that the jury acquitted. As some have observed, this outcome can make a partial acquittal in federal court into a pyrrhic victory as the defendant’s sentence is impacted by the same behavior that the jury concluded was not proved beyond a reasonable doubt. And not just impacted on the margin — a defendant’s sentence can be greatly increased.
*May exclude premium content
ITC General Exclusion Orders Targeting All Importers Are On the Rise
By Daniel Muino, Brian Busey and Nomin-Erdene Jagdagdorj
In recent years, the ITC has issued more General Exclusion Orders (GEOs) than in the past. For importers of products potentially implicated by a requested GEO, the GEO can be a major threat even if the importer is not a respondent in the case.
Ticket Resellers’ Campaign Raises Securities Law and Money Laundering Issues
By Chris Castle
Some markets allow for the sale of a future contract for tickets that have not gone on sale as yet (i.e., “speculative ticketing”). The future contract, like an option or a commodities future, allows someone to purchase the right to buy a ticket once the tickets are offered for sale. This seems to implicate securities law issues, broker-dealer regulations and potentially the general solicitation rule.
Rule 10b-5 Liability: The Second Circuit and ‘Rio Tinto’
By Anthony Michael Sabino
Part Three of a Three-Part Article
The first two installments exposited Janus Capital Group, Inc. v. First Derivative Traders and Lorenzo v. S.E.C., both essential to understanding S.E.C. v. Rio Tinto, the Second Circuit’s most recent holding regarding Rule 10b-5 “scheme” liability. Now we examine how the “Mother Court” of federal securities law has tended to that branch of the mighty judicial oak rooted in that venerable regulation.
Limitations on Omissions Liability for Opinions Following 'Omnicare'
By Gregory Silbert and Joshua Wesneski
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.” The Supreme Court has applied this maxim to the securities laws, holding in Omnicare v. Laborers District Council , that while statements of opinion generally are not actionable, there are some narrow circumstances in which such statements entail or imply false or misleading assertions of fact.
Copyright © ALM Global, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
