Internal investigations have become commonplace in corporate America. From Fox’s Bill O’Reilly to the General Motors investigation, companies often hire law firms as a signal to shareholders that they are taking a crisis seriously, as well as a signal to the government that they are able to clean house. Apart from these high profile scandals, internal investigations are routinely done in order to ferret out wrongdoing within companies which have been victimized by employees. In cases where companies are victims, they often use internal investigations to root out the mechanics of the fraud as well as the responsible employees in order to turn them over to the authorities. In these instances, the provisions of the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act (“MVRA”), 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(a)(2) require a court to order restitution for a victim’s “actual loss directly and proximately caused by the defendant’s offense of conviction.” A recent case from the Fifth Circuit demonstrates the reach of the MVRA.
On May 9, 2017, New Jersey Attorney General Christopher S. Porrino announced two new, short-term initiatives to combat public corruption: the Anti-Corruption Whistleblower Program and the Anti-Corruption Reward Program. The Attorney General’s Office expects both programs will help generate initial leads to uncover and prosecute public corruption crimes, as these types of cases are characteristically difficult to expose because they are often document intensive and involve sophisticated actors. Both programs are offered for only a limited time—until August 1, 2017. The Attorney General’s Office indicates that the temporary availability is intended to generate quick results; however, these programs will also allow the Attorney General’s Office to evaluate the efficacy of such programs to determine whether to offer similar programs in the future.
The New Jersey Supreme Court recently held in Conley v. Guerrero that the method of delivery requirements in the attorney review provision of a standard form real estate contract should not be strictly enforced. In what was an anticipated decision by lawyers and real estate professionals, the Court recognized that the delivery can be accomplished through email, facsimile and overnight delivery, in addition to the already sanctioned methods of certified mail, telegram (yes, telegram), and personal delivery. Continue reading “The Future Is Now—NJ Supreme Court Permits Notice by Email”
Blank Rome Partner David Kistler will be a panelist at the New Jersey Institute for Continuing Legal Education’s “Hot Topics in Federal Practice” program on Tuesday, April 25, 2017, from 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. EDT, at the Trenton Country Club in Trenton, NJ. Continue reading “Hot Topics in Federal Practice”
Blank Rome Partner Jonathan Korn, based in the Firm’s Princeton office, will present on “Ethical Advertising – New Challenges” at the New Jersey Association for Justice (“NJAJ”) 2017 Medical Malpractice Boardwalk Seminar on April 28, 2017, at the Harrah’s Resort in Atlantic City.
The three-day seminar is exclusively designed to meet the continuing educational requirements of trial attorneys and features outstanding local and regional speakers along with top national speakers. Additional topics include:
- Making Your Mediation and Arbitration Statements Pop!
- The Patient Safety Act: Developing Cases – Don’t Overreach
- Deposing the Defendant on the Standard of Care
- Using Medical Learned Treatise
For more information or to register, please click here.
In Motorworld, Inc. v. William Benkendorf, et al. (A-64-15), the Supreme Court of New Jersey held that a corporation’s release of a debt constituted a fraudulent transfer under the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (“UFTA”), N.J.S.A. 25:2-20 to -34.
In 1998, Morton Salkind arranged for his wife, Carole Salkind, to become the sole shareholder of 19 closely held corporations, including: (i) plaintiff Motorwold, Inc. (“Motorworld”); (ii) Fox Development, Inc. (“Fox”); and (iii) Giant Association (“Giant”). Defendant William Benkendorf was the owner of defendant Benks Land Services, Inc. (“Benks”). In 2004, Morton retained Benks to provide landscaping services to some of the companies owned by Carole, including Fox and Giant, but not Motorworld. Over time, Fox and Giant accumulated a debt to Benks of more than $1 million. Later in 2004, Motorworld loaned Benkendorf and his wife, defendant Gundrun Benkendorf, $600,000 so that the Benkendorfs could resolve a tax issue. Carole transferred $499,999 from her personal account into Motorworld’s account and the Benkendorfs executed a Note, stating that they would pay the principal amount. The Benkendorfs also agreed not to use the Note to offset any monies owed to them by any company owned by Carole, including Fox and Giant. Continue reading “New Jersey Supreme Court Rules That Release of Debt of Closely-Held Corporation in Exchange for Release of Debt by Second Closely-Held Corporation Is a Fraudulent Transfer”
Please join Blank Rome’s Trade Secret and Competition group for a cross-office briefing looking back on the impact that the Defend Trade Secrets Act has had during its first year in existence. Have any parties successfully used its extraordinary ex parte seizure provision? Has there been a major shift in trade secrets law now that it is the subject of a federal statute? We will discuss answers to these questions and more. Continue reading “Happy Birthday to the Defend Trade Secrets Act: A One-Year Retrospective”