At press time, U.S. Deputy Attorney General Paul J. McNulty revised the controversial 'Thompson Memorandum.' A new 'McNulty Memorandum' was issued after harsh criticism from District Judge Lewis A. Kaplan in the KPMG case and a proposal by Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA) to abrogate the Thompson Memorandum by act of Congress. Look for an in-depth analysis in our February Issue.
Counsel for companies faced with criminal violations of securities laws must maneuver carefully through a gamut of factors to determine whether to voluntarily disclose criminal conduct. A corporation may face administrative and criminal sanctions for non-cooperation from both the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the SEC. But the DOJ's 'Thompson Memorandum' also bestows attractive benefits for cooperation, measured in part by the corporation's willingness 'to disclose the complete results of its internal investigation.' The prosecution may grant a corporation 'immunity or amnesty or pretrial diversion' or 'a non-prosecution agreement in exchange for cooperation.'
Mold-related personal injury claims have mushroomed in recent years, fueled in large part by the media and plaintiffs' lawyers who see mold as 'the next asbestos.' Many of these claims have been brought against cooperatives, condominiums and landlords by residents claiming that their health has been adversely affected by the presence of mold in their apartments. The science regarding causation is inconclusive, however, and New York courts have not weighed in on the matter until recently.
The latest happenings in this important area.
Properly administered impact fee programs can operate to streamline California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review of later development projects. At the same time, impact fee programs that are not implemented in accordance with the original expectations, or that are founded upon unrealistic assumptions, may offer the lead agency and affected applicant little or no real legal relief, and may be a trap for the unwary.
In a recent development that will likely be of interest to companies conducting business in Europe, the American Bar Association has recently urged the U.S. government to sign, ratify and implement the Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements (the 'Choice of Court Convention'). The Choice of Court Convention accomplishes many goals that have long been sought by the United States. Most importantly, it provides a mechanism for the recognition of certain judgments rendered by U.S. courts, namely judgments resolving a dispute arising out of a commercial agreement that was submitted pursuant to an exclusive choice of court agreement. (See American Bar Association, Recommendation adopted by the House of Delegates (Aug. 7-8, 2006), at www.abanet.org/intlaw/policy/investment/hcca0806.pdf.)
Understandably, companies have become more sensitive about protecting confidential, proprietary business information from disclosure to competitors and others outside the company. A recent ruling by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, Venetian Casino Report v. EEOC, 2006 WL 2806568 (D.D. Cir. 2006), demonstrates that such disclosures may occur in the most unexpected ways.
In recent years, debtors in large corporate bankruptcies have sometimes sought and obtained, in varying degrees, authority at the outset of bankruptcy cases for severe restrictions on trading in claims against the debtors by substantial claimholders. In practice, however, these debt-trading orders have chilled the market for trading in debt securities and served to entrench existing management by effectively precluding substantial investors from acquiring meaningful positions in the debtor's debt securities.
Fourth-quarter roundup of all the latest compliance rulings.
