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.

Search

Refine your search

5 results found

Article

Zuckerman Spaeder LLP | USA | 27 Jul 2016

Employees Who Don’t Cooperate With Company Investigations Can Be Terminated for Cause

When a company learns that its employees may have done something unlawful, it should try to get the facts and figure out whether wrongdoing actually

Article

McCann FitzGerald | USA | 18 Jul 2016

Microsoft Wins Landmark Search Warrant Case

In an important ruling, the US Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit has upheld Microsoft's challenge to a warrant which sought the disclosure of

Article

Morvillo Abramowitz Grand Iason & Anello PC | USA | 7 Jul 2016

Implications of ‘Countrywide’ for Mail and Wire Fraud Prosecutions

Prosecutors tend to extend the reach of white-collar criminal statutes until the judiciary, at some point, pushes backthe Supreme Court’s decision

Article

Fried Frank Harris Shriver & Jacobson LLP | USA | 24 May 2016

FIRREA: Second Circuit Erases Trial Verdict and $1.27 Billion FIRREA Penalty Due to Justice Department’s Failure to Prove Fraud

On Monday, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals delivered a blow to the Justice Department’s increasing use of the Financial Institutions Reform

Article

Eversheds Sutherland (US) LLP | USA | 6 Jul 2009

Key briefs filed in Jones v. Harris Associates regarding compensation paid to mutual fund advisors

Less than one week after Petitioners filed their brief, the SEC and the Justice Department filed an amicus curiae brief where the Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide “whether the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit erroneously held, in conflict with the decisions of three other circuits, that a shareholder’s claim that the fund’s investment adviser charged an excessive feemore than twice the fee it charged to funds with which it was not affiliatedis not cognizable under 36(b) of the Investment Company Act of 1940, unless the shareholder can show that the adviser misled the fund’s directors who approved the fee.”

Previous page 1 Next page