Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

Parallel Proceedings: The End of an Error?

By Jefferson M. Gray
July 30, 2008

Three years ago, two similarly minded district court decisions rocked federal regulatory agencies and the Department of Justice (DOJ) by rejecting longstanding assumptions about the proper conduct of simultaneous civil and criminal investigations, commonly known as 'parallel proceedings.' First, in United States v. Scrushy, 366 F. Supp.2d 1134, 1139 (N.D. Ala. 2005), the court said: 'To be parallel, by definition, the separate investigations should be like side-by-side train tracks that never intersect.' Accordingly, the court dismissed perjury charges arising out of the defendant's testimony in an SEC civil deposition because ' prior to the deposition ' SEC investigators had exchanged information with federal prosecutors, provided them expert assistance, and complied with certain of their requests.

Next, in United States v. Stringer, 408 F. Supp.2d 1083, 1087-88 (D. Or. 2006), another district court dismissed the entire indictment against three defendants in a corporate-fraud case because it found that factually and temporally overlapping investigations conducted by the SEC and the U.S. Attorney's Office in Oregon 'were not parallel proceedings.' The court reasoned that the prosecutors were 'actively involved in the SEC investigation' by meeting regularly with SEC personnel, receiving documents, requesting that depositions be taken in the district to establish venue for possible false statements charges, and advising the SEC investigators on the elements of criminal false statements charges. In the alternative, the Stringer court found that the indictment should be dismissed because the government had 'engaged in deceit and trickery to keep the criminal investigation concealed' when an SEC attorney instructed a court reporter not to mention the DOJ's involvement to defense attorneys and also side-stepped a direct response when one defense attorney asked whether there was a pending criminal investigation.

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
Why So Many Great Lawyers Stink at Business Development and What Law Firms Are Doing About It Image

Why is it that those who are best skilled at advocating for others are ill-equipped at advocating for their own skills and what to do about it?

Bankruptcy Sales: Finding a Diamond In the Rough Image

There is no efficient market for the sale of bankruptcy assets. Inefficient markets yield a transactional drag, potentially dampening the ability of debtors and trustees to maximize value for creditors. This article identifies ways in which investors may more easily discover bankruptcy asset sales.

The DOJ's Corporate Enforcement Policy: One Year Later Image

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.

A Lawyer's System for Active Reading Image

Active reading comprises many daily tasks lawyers engage in, including highlighting, annotating, note taking, comparing and searching texts. It demands more than flipping or turning pages.

Protecting Innovation in the Cyber World from Patent Trolls Image

With trillions of dollars to keep watch over, the last thing we need is the distraction of costly litigation brought on by patent assertion entities (PAEs or "patent trolls"), companies that don't make any products but instead seek royalties by asserting their patents against those who do make products.