Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Once again a company has felt the pain that comes when it is caught violating an agreement with the Department of Justice. After taking a tongue lashing from a federal judge for repeatedly violating the law, Carnival Corp. executives have until autumn to hire a chief compliance officer and begin meaningful compliance reforms at the world's largest cruise line.
And if they fail again? U.S. District Judge Patricia Seitz of the Southern District of Florida has threatened to bar Carnival from docking at U.S. ports, and she said she'd consider punishing individual executives with criminal fines and prison time.
“The concern I have is that senior management has no skin in the game,” Seitz said in the June 3 threats to the executives. “My goal is to have the defendant change its behavior.” The company chairman, CEO, chief financial officer and senior management from each operating cruise line of Carnival were in the courtroom.
Seitz had demanded that the top executives be in the hearing June 3 to hear her ultimatum. A Carnival spokesman and its general counsel, Arnaldo Perez, did not return messages seeking commentas of press time.
In 2017, Carnival had agreed to pay a record fine of $40 million after a criminal conviction for similar pollution. It signed a probation agreement then that included a promise to name a head compliance officer. It failed to do so while violating several other parts of the deal.
The March issue of Business Crime Bulletin's ALM sibling Corporate Counsel magazine looked at some dire consequences when companies ignore their own agreements with federal prosecutors. See, 'Three Companies Learn the Hard Way: Don't Breach a Federal Non-Prosecution Agreement.” In that article, former federal prosecutor Joan Meyer, now a partner at Baker McKenzie in Washington, DC, said: “Where there is concern about the speed in which a company is rectifying a bad internal control situation, they [prosecutors] could be more punitive.”
Seitz signed off on a new, tougher probation agreement June 3 after finding Carnival deliberately discharged plastic into Bahamian waters and failed to record the illegal discharges accurately; falsified environmental training records aboard two cruise ships, and sent secret teams to ships to prepare them for required independent inspections.
It pleaded guilty to committing six probation violations, agreed to pay another $20 million criminal penalty, and promised to institute compliance reforms.
The new, three-year probation agreement requires Carnival to:
U.S. Attorney Ariana Fajardo Orshan for the Southern District of Florida said in a statement: “A corporation is responsible to its shareholders and board of directors to be profitable, but not by breaking the law and destroying the very environment in which it navigates for profit. Carnival's failure to comply with the terms of its probation, and later its attempt to drown its deceit, goes against the fiber of corporate compliance.”
*****
Sue Reisinger is a Senior reporter at ALM. She is based in Florida and covers general counsel and white-collar crime. She can be reached at [email protected].
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
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.
In June 2024, the First Department decided Huguenot LLC v. Megalith Capital Group Fund I, L.P., which resolved a question of liability for a group of condominium apartment buyers and in so doing, touched on a wide range of issues about how contracts can obligate purchasers of real property.
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.
Latham & Watkins helped the largest U.S. commercial real estate research company prevail in a breach-of-contract dispute in District of Columbia federal court.