Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
A bedrock of living in a New York City co-op has been the notion that a tenant/shareholder who breaches their proprietary lease or drags their building into expensive and protracted litigation will be responsible for reimbursing the co-op corporation for the expenses incurred as a result of the breach, including the corporation’s reasonable attorneys’ fees. Indeed, over the years, recalcitrant shareholders have been required to reimburse their co-ops hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees due to their failure to abide by their contractual obligations and, in some instances, acting as “litigation terrorists.”
The obligation to reimburse the “Lessor’s expenses” is contained in all proprietary leases and trumps the general concept in American jurisprudence that the parties to a dispute each bear the burden of paying their own legal fees. However, a recent decision from the Appellate Division, First Department (which has jurisdiction over Manhattan and the Bronx), has thrown this well-established concept into flux.
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.
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 explores legal developments over the past year that may impact compliance officer personal liability.
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.