Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
In the post-Enron era, corporate counsel are seeing more government investigations that lead to 'deferred prosecution agreements' (DPAs). In these arrangements, the government formally accuses a company of criminal conduct, but agrees to hold the prosecution in abeyance pending the company's efforts to make amends. These cases include such well-known names as KPMG, Computer Asso-ciates and Bristol Myers Squibb.
Why are these settlements suddenly coming onto the scene? In a sense, they are not entirely new. The reality of the corporate world is that major companies simply do not go to trial on criminal matters. Before DPAs, there were various forms of consent decrees, settlement agreements and corporate integrity agreements. The latest variation comes partly from a reference in the Thompson Memorandum advising federal prosecutors to consider this tool. From the government's perspective, these agreements provide enormous ongoing leverage: The company has agreed to what the government wants, it has admitted on the record that it engaged in wrongdoing, and any violation allows the government to use the company's admissions without new charges being filed. Companies avoid the uncertainty of trial, destructive publicity and the diversion of management's attention that comes with battling criminal charges. But what are the implications of this trend and the questions we should be asking?
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
This article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.
When we consider how the use of AI affects legal PR and communications, we have to look at it as an industrywide global phenomenon. A recent online conference provided an overview of the latest AI trends in public relations, and specifically, the impact of AI on communications. Here are some of the key points and takeaways from several of the speakers, who provided current best practices, tips, concerns and case studies.
The parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.