Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

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

The Business Crimes Hotline

By ALM Staff | Law Journal Newsletters |
February 25, 2010

CALIFORNIA

Former Homestore.com CEO Agrees to Plead Guilty to Securities Fraud Conspiracy

On Jan. 7, 2010, the United States Attorney's Office for the Central District of California announced that Stuart Wolff, former chairman of the board and chief executive officer of Homestore.com, had agreed to plead guilty to a single count of conspiracy to commit securities fraud.

The conspiracy charge arose from an alleged scheme to artificially inflate online advertising revenue in 2001 at Homestore.com, the real estate listing company now known as Move, Inc. According to the government, senior executives at the company used multiple “round-trip” transactions to fraudulently generate a circular flow of money. Using the “round-trip” transactions, Homestore.com then recognized its own cash as revenue in an apparent attempt to improve the company's Wall Street profitability assessment. According to the government, the company's shareholders lost at least $100 million upon public disclosure of Homestore.com's accounting irregularities related to the “round-trip” transactions.

For Wolff, the plea signals the end of a legal process that included a prior conviction in 2006 for his role in the scheme. The 2006 conviction was reversed in January 2008 by the Ninth Circuit, on the grounds that the trial judge should have been recused. According to the government, upon entry of Wolff's guilty plea, the Homestore.com investigation has yielded 12 individual federal convictions.

The plea, entered before Judge Gary A. Feess, calls for a minimum sentence of at least three years in prison. The statutory maximum prison sentence for the charge is five years. Sentencing is scheduled for April 19, 2010, in Los Angeles.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

BAE Systems PLC Reaches Combined Settlement with DOJ And UK Serious Fraud Office

On Feb. 5, 2010, BAE Systems PLC, the UK-based defense, security and aerospace company, announced that it had reached a global settlement with the UK's Serious Fraud Office (SFO) and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ).

As part of the proposed settlement with the SFO, BAE agreed to pay a '30 million penalty and plead guilty to one charge of breach of duty to keep accounting records. According to the SFO, the plea and penalty are in response to payments made by BAE to a former Tanzania marketing adviser. As part of the plea, the penalty will be split, in an as yet undetermined manner, between a fine and a charitable payment to benefit Tanzania.

While subject to court approval, BAE's proposed DOJ settlement requires the company to plead guilty to a single charge of conspiracy to make false statements to the U.S. Government relating to BAE's regulatory filings and undertakings. As part of the proposed settlement, BAE agreed to pay a $400 million fine and make additional ongoing compliance commitments.


Business Crimes Hotline was written by Matthew Alexander, an associate at Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Washington, DC.

CALIFORNIA

Former Homestore.com CEO Agrees to Plead Guilty to Securities Fraud Conspiracy

On Jan. 7, 2010, the United States Attorney's Office for the Central District of California announced that Stuart Wolff, former chairman of the board and chief executive officer of Homestore.com, had agreed to plead guilty to a single count of conspiracy to commit securities fraud.

The conspiracy charge arose from an alleged scheme to artificially inflate online advertising revenue in 2001 at Homestore.com, the real estate listing company now known as Move, Inc. According to the government, senior executives at the company used multiple “round-trip” transactions to fraudulently generate a circular flow of money. Using the “round-trip” transactions, Homestore.com then recognized its own cash as revenue in an apparent attempt to improve the company's Wall Street profitability assessment. According to the government, the company's shareholders lost at least $100 million upon public disclosure of Homestore.com's accounting irregularities related to the “round-trip” transactions.

For Wolff, the plea signals the end of a legal process that included a prior conviction in 2006 for his role in the scheme. The 2006 conviction was reversed in January 2008 by the Ninth Circuit, on the grounds that the trial judge should have been recused. According to the government, upon entry of Wolff's guilty plea, the Homestore.com investigation has yielded 12 individual federal convictions.

The plea, entered before Judge Gary A. Feess, calls for a minimum sentence of at least three years in prison. The statutory maximum prison sentence for the charge is five years. Sentencing is scheduled for April 19, 2010, in Los Angeles.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

BAE Systems PLC Reaches Combined Settlement with DOJ And UK Serious Fraud Office

On Feb. 5, 2010, BAE Systems PLC, the UK-based defense, security and aerospace company, announced that it had reached a global settlement with the UK's Serious Fraud Office (SFO) and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ).

As part of the proposed settlement with the SFO, BAE agreed to pay a '30 million penalty and plead guilty to one charge of breach of duty to keep accounting records. According to the SFO, the plea and penalty are in response to payments made by BAE to a former Tanzania marketing adviser. As part of the plea, the penalty will be split, in an as yet undetermined manner, between a fine and a charitable payment to benefit Tanzania.

While subject to court approval, BAE's proposed DOJ settlement requires the company to plead guilty to a single charge of conspiracy to make false statements to the U.S. Government relating to BAE's regulatory filings and undertakings. As part of the proposed settlement, BAE agreed to pay a $400 million fine and make additional ongoing compliance commitments.


Business Crimes Hotline was written by Matthew Alexander, an associate at Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Washington, DC.

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
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws Image

This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.

The Article 8 Opt In Image

The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.

Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin Image

With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.

Legal Possession: What Does It Mean? Image

Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.

The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions Image

UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?