Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

Search

We found 1,386 results for "Business Crimes Bulletin"...

Supreme Court's <i>Troice</i> Has Important Risk Management Implications
September 02, 2014
On Feb. 26, the U.S. Supreme Court decided <I>Chadbourne &amp; Parke v.Troice</I>, holding that SLUSA does not preclude state law class actions where the plaintiffs allege that they purchased uncovered securities that the defendants said were backed by securities listed on a national exchange ' a misrepresentation.
The Settlement Privilege and the Threat of Legal Action
September 02, 2014
Part One of this article considers the issue of when a threat to litigate encased by a settlement demand raises the specter of extortion, and the extent to which a potentially extortionate settlement communication should be outside the scope of the privilege.
Business Crimes Hotline
September 02, 2014
A look at several cases of note.
Gratuities and Honest Services Fraud
September 02, 2014
As noted in Part One of this article, in <I>Skilling v. United States</I>, the U.S. Supreme Court limited the scope of the honest services fraud statute 18 U.S.C. ' 1346) to "bribery and kickback" schemes, yet did not define what a "bribery" or "kickback" scheme must entail. So the question becomes this: Must a "bribe or kickback" involve a <I>quid pro quo</I>?
<b><i>Online Extra</b></i> Facing a Breach, UPS Delivers Smart Cybersecurity Moves
August 28, 2014
United Parcel Service Inc. announced on Aug. 22 that it had suffered a data breach exposing customer information, but the unusual part of the news was that it caught and held the breach to just 1 percent of its stores nationwide, affecting about 105,000 customers.
Gratuities and Honest Services Fraud
August 02, 2014
In <I>Skilling v. United States</I>, the U.S. Supreme Court limited the scope of the honest services fraud statute (18 U.S.C. ' 1346) to "bribery and kickback" schemes. But those terms are not self-defining, and the Court did not define them.
Obstruction of (Contemplated) Justice
August 02, 2014
In the wake of the guidance provided by the federal appellate decisions affirming the distinctions between ' 1519 and the other obstruction statutes in recent years, prosecutors have been increasingly relying on this anti-shredding provision to file charges based on a variety of fact patterns well outside the typical norm for obstruction cases
Data Breaches and Insurance Coverage
August 02, 2014
When a breach of the data occurs and confidential information is accessed by unauthorized persons, the financial consequences to the business entity may be substantial. But when that business seeks defense and indemnification from its insurer, the insurer just might push back.
Business Crimes Hotline
August 02, 2014
In-depth discussion of several key cases.
In the Courts
August 02, 2014
Analysis of a decision in which the D.C. Circuit ruled on attorney-client privilege protections for corporate internal Investigations

MOST POPULAR STORIES

  • Surveys in Patent Infringement Litigation: The Next Frontier
    Most experienced intellectual property attorneys understand the significant role surveys play in trademark infringement and other Lanham Act cases, but relatively few are likely to have considered the use of such research in patent infringement matters. That could soon change in light of the recent admission of a survey into evidence in <i>Applera Corporation, et al. v. MJ Research, Inc., et al.</i>, No. 3:98cv1201 (D. Conn. Aug. 26, 2005). The survey evidence, which showed that 96% of the defendant's customers used its products to perform a patented process, was admitted as evidence in support of a claim of inducement to infringe. The court admitted the survey into evidence over various objections by the defendant, who had argued that the inducement claim could not be proven without the survey.
    Read More ›
  • In the Spotlight
    On May 9, 2003, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Massachusetts announced that Bayer Corporation, the pharmaceutical manufacturer, had been sentenced and ordered to pay a criminal fine of $5,590,800 stemming from its earlier plea of guilty to violating the Federal Prescription Drug Marketing Act by failing to list with the FDA its drug product, Cipro, that was privately labeled for an HMO. Such listing is required under the federal Food, Drug &amp; Cosmetic Act. The Federal Prescription Drug Marketing Act, Pub. L. 100-293, enacted on April 22, 1988, as modified on August 26, 1992 by the Prescription Drug Amendments (PDA) Pub. L. 102-353, 106 Stat. 941, amended sections 301, 303, 503, and 801 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, codified at 21 U.S.C. '' 331, 333, 353, 381, to establish requirements for distributing prescription drug samples.
    Read More ›