Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Law
When Should Ediscovery Vendors Be Disqualified?, Michael A. Cottone
When Should Ediscovery Vendors Be Disqualified?, Michael A. Cottone
Transactions: The Tennessee Journal of Business Law
As a general proposition, courts have inherent authority to disqualify parties and their representatives and consultants from participating in litigation. Attorneys, expert witnesses, and litigation consultants may face disqualification motions in the event of a conflict of interest. With the rapid expansion of the eDiscovery industry, however, a new question has arisen: If an eDiscovery vendor has a potential conflict of interest, when should it be disqualified? What standard should apply?
Judge Rakoff V. The Securities And Exchange Commission: Are "Neither Admit Nor Deny" Settlement Agreements In Securities Cases In The Public Interest?, Daniel T. Hubbell
Judge Rakoff V. The Securities And Exchange Commission: Are "Neither Admit Nor Deny" Settlement Agreements In Securities Cases In The Public Interest?, Daniel T. Hubbell
Transactions: The Tennessee Journal of Business Law
“DPAs [(Deferred Prosecution Agreements)] have had a truly transformative effect on particular companies and, more generally, on corporate culture across the globe,” declared Lanny Breuer, the head of the Criminal Division of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) on September 13, 2012.2 Deferred prosecution agreements (DPAs) and non-prosecution agreements (NPAs) are settlement agreements between a prosecutor and a defendant in which the prosecutor agrees to either defer or forego prosecution in return for the defendant’s cooperation in an ongoing investigation or prosecution, as well as an agreement to comply with the requirements of the settlement. Rather than forcing prosecutors to …