Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
In today's increasingly complex and regulated business environment, hundreds of different risks threaten law firms. While some of them can lead to malpractice claims that could destroy a firm's reputation and finances, others can be physically or operationally devastating.<br>Before a firm can begin to manage risk, it is important to define risk. In my many conversations with managing partners, executive directors or law firm CFOs, they all generally seem to think of risk in terms of insurance (malpractice, workers comp, business interruption, etc). While I agree this is one area of risk, the overall definition of risk is much broader. Risk is the potential for any issue to negatively affect an entity's ability to meet its objectives.
As the pace and scale of federal white-collar prosecutions grow, an inherent inequality in the process threatens the fundamental fairness of the criminal justice system: the uneven access to information. The government typically spends years investigating with the grand jury and using subpoena powers, immunity offers, and foreign treaties to gather virtually any document or testimony it wants. Moreover, because the government has no obligation to subpoena exculpatory records, it can purposely sanitize its case, avoiding subpoenaing documents that are helpful to the defendant.
Features
The Deferred Prosecution Agreement (DPA) entered into between KPMG and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York on Aug. 29, 2005, is just the latest example of the federal government's perverting the notion of corporate cooperation, so that 'cooperation' means uttering only the words that the government authorizes. Corpora-tions are increasingly faced with the option of being put out of business or capitulating to the demands of overzealous prosecutors who possess seemingly unchecked powers. The ability of prosecutors to force corporations to accept a full complement of draconian provisions too frequently results in individual employees' being left behind to take the fall for the 'good' of the company. KPMG's acceptance of the terms of the DPA is a clear example of how these prosecutorial powers can strip individuals of their constitutional rights.
Features
Highlights of the latest product liability cases from around the country.
In the last few years, the compliance staff of the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission has sought a number of significant civil penalties for failure to report or for late reporting. It is instructive to look at recent civil penalty cases to see what is important to the CPSC staff in assessing the appropriateness and level of penalties. First, however, let's examine the reporting requirements.
Features
In recent years, increasing numbers of large corporations have, in the hope of avoiding a conviction and all the ramifications a conviction entails, entered into Deferred Prosecution Agreements (DPAs) with the Department of Justice (DOJ). Much has been written about the lack of bargaining power companies have in negotiating these deals, and about the onerous nature of some of their terms. In this article, we suggest that companies can use the DPAs entered into by others to their advantage by treating them as guides to assist them in formulating their own compliance programs. Not only should this result in strengthened programs, but should a compliance problem nevertheless arise, having a 'government-issued' program in place could provide a company with a strong argument that it has done the most it can in formulating an effective program and hence should not be subject to prosecution.
The April 19, 1995 Oklahoma City bombing stunned the nation, not only because of the horrific nature of the act itself, but because no one thought that products as common as agricultural fertilizer and motor-racing fuel could be used to incinerate a federal building. Six years later, the 9/11 terrorist attacks again sent the nation into shock at the idea that a group of people would commit a suicide attack by taking control of four planes and crashing them into multiple buildings. These violent attacks are proof that common products are being used, and oftentimes manipulated, in an improper manner for improper uses. Consequently, the victims of such attacks are suing manufacturers and handlers of these common products for alleged negligence, even though a third party committed the act in question. If your client is a manufacturer or handler of a product, how can you help protect it from liability?
Features
Recent rulings of interest to you and your practice.
Features
In the January, 2006, issue of <i>The Bankruptcy Strategist</i>, we discussed the impact of two recent bankruptcy opinions out of the Delaware Court: <i>IT Litigation Trust v. D'Aniella et al.</i> (<i>In re: IT Group, Inc. et al.</i>) and <i>Shandler v. DLJ Merchant Banking, Inc., et al.M.</i> (<i>In re Insilco Technologies, Inc.</i>). We included a brief update in the February, 2006 issue after the Delaware courts weighed in on the subject for the third time in only 3 months. Now we discuss, in depth, the possible implications of <i>Insilco</i> and <i>IT Group</i> on plan structuring.
When faced with a 'crashworthiness case,' manufacturers in the automotive, trucking, or aircraft industries enjoy a distinct legal advantage over the plaintiff. Indeed, in the many jurisdictions where the crashworthiness doctrine is recognized, the plaintiff's burden of proof in such cases is dramatically higher than in the standard product liability action. In the automotive context, these cases are sometimes referred to as 'second collision' cases because the manufacturer's liability is based not upon the 'first collision' between the vehicles involved in the accident, but the 'second collision' comprised of the physical contact made between the plaintiff's body and the vehicle's interior.
