We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.
In cooperation with Association of Corporate Counsel
  Request new password

Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 1-10 of 47

Agreement for “direct use immunity” did not preclude federal prosecutors from sharing defendant’s incriminating proffer statements with foreign (or state) authorities

  • Day Pitney LLP
  • -
  • France, USA
  • -
  • June 23 2009

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed that a criminal defendant’s agreement with federal prosecutors not to use against him any statements made by him during proffer sessions did not bar the U.S. Attorney’s Office from sharing his incriminating statements with authorities in France who then used the statements against him in French criminal proceedings

New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act

  • Day Pitney LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • September 13 2013

In a business-friendly decision, Perez v. Professionally Green, LLC, 214 N.J. ___ (2013), a unanimous New Jersey Supreme Court held yesterday that a

Department of Labor clarifies same-sex marriage FMLA coverage following U.S. v. Windsor decision

  • Day Pitney LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • August 28 2013

On August 9, 2013, U.S. Department of Labor ("DOL") Secretary Thomas E. Perez issued guidance clarifying that same-sex spouses are eligible for

"It vexes me. I'm terribly vexed."

  • Day Pitney LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • September 4 2012

The Hyde Amendment gives criminal defendants the chance to win attorney's fees and costs when "the court finds that the position of the United States was vexatious, frivolous, or in bad faith."

Pantazis v. Fidrych

  • Day Pitney LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • December 30 2008

In the recently-reported decision in Pantazis v. Fidrych, Case No. 02-CV-0919, 2008 Mass. Super. LEXIS 386 (Worcester Super. Ct. Nov. 7 2008), the Superior Court addresses, among other things, its authority to remove a trustee

Gillespie v. Gillespie

  • Day Pitney LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • February 18 2011

First, in Gillespie v. Gillespie, Case No. 09-P-2174, 2011 Mass. App. Unpub. LEXIS 156 (Feb. 7, 2011), a decision issued pursuant to Rule 1:28, the Appeals Court addressed claims for tortious interference with expectancy of a gift and wrongful death by suicide

Lifting the veil of secrecy

  • Day Pitney LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • October 31 2011

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder wrote the chair of the Advisory Committee on the Criminal Rules, recommending an amendment to Rule 6(e), which governs the secrecy of grand-jury materials

McGeoghean v. McGeoghean

  • Day Pitney LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • August 15 2011

In McGeoghean v. McGeoghean, Case No. 10-P-407, 2011 Mass. App. Unpub. LEXIS 936 (Aug. 3, 2011), a decision issued pursuant to Rule 1:28, the Appeals Court affirmed the superior court's judgment in all respects

Connecticut's proposed rule on registration of in-house counsel due for vote of judges

  • Day Pitney LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 25 2007

With all the things that a Connecticut company's in-house counsel has to worry about, being accused of practicing law without a license should not be one of them

Connecticut Authorized House Counsel registration procedure

  • Day Pitney LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • September 12 2007

Subsequent to our September 6-7 Briefings on the new Connecticut Rule 2-15A on registration of Authorized House Counsel (AHC), we have obtained the following new information of importance