Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

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

Business Crimes BulletinKickerFeaturesSectionsNewsLJN Newsletters

<i>Fokker</i> and Its Aftermath: The Irony and the Legacy

By Doreen Klein and Stanley A. Twardy, Jr.
November 30, 2015

While recent years have seen a rash of decisions rejecting civil settlements between the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and corporate defendants, United States v. Fokker Services B.V., 79 F. Supp. 3d 160 (D.D.C. 2015), represents the first time that a federal court has rejected an agreement in the criminal context. The defendant in Fokker was an aerospace services provider that the government charged with selling aircraft parts to customers in Iran and other U.S.-sanctioned nations. The Department of Justice (DOJ) and the defendant entered into a deferred prosecution agreement, and the DOJ moved to exclude time under the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. ' 3161 ' a standard request permitting the DOJ to assess the defendant's adherence to the terms of the agreement. Characterizing Iran as “one of our country's worst enemies” and Fokker as a “rogue” company, U.S. District Judge Richard Leon denied the application, derailing the agreement. DOJ and Fokker appealed to the D.C. Court of Appeals, which heard argument in September but at press time, had not yet rendered its decision.

There are several ironies. The district court's reading of the Speedy Trial Act ensures that this matter will remain in limbo and without resolution for some time to come. Moreover, the case came before the Court of Appeals two days after the DOJ announced a renewed initiative to hold individuals accountable for corporate misdeeds ' one of the chief failings the district court identified. Finally, Fokker leveraged off the holding in United States v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A., No. 12-CR-763, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 92438 (E.D.N.Y. July 1, 2013), where U.S. District Judge John Gleeson relied upon a “plain reading” of the Speedy Trial Act ,but termed his scrutiny of a Deferred Prosecution Agreement (DPA) “novel.”

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.