Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

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

Corporate Criminal Liability in the COVID-19 Era

By Carolyn H. Kendall
June 01, 2020

The Department of Justice (DOJ) "Yates Memo" in 2015 renewed the federal government's commitment to hold individuals accountable for corporate wrongdoing and offered related incentives. Companies, looking to minimize their enforcement risks and avoid indictment, are incentivized to provide the government information about employees and executives, sometimes to support a claim that a rogue employee acted against company policy. These incentives apparently have been successful; individual prosecutions for corporate malfeasance have increased in recent years. See, "The Yates Memo is Here to Stay: Signs of Increasing Efforts to Hold Individuals Criminally Liable for Corporate Wrongdoing," Business Crimes Bulletin (June 2019).

However, criminal liability remains a concern for all companies and organizations, and prosecuting corporate wrongdoers continues to be a "high priority" for the DOJ. See, Justice Manual §9-28.010. Consistent with its Principles of Federal Prosecution of Business Organizations, DOJ focuses criminal prosecutions on those corporate actions that endanger consumers, public health and safety, the environment and free markets. Id. Many of these violations can also give rise to civil regulatory enforcement, and companies must be mindful of the risk that a compliance failure could cross the line from civil to criminal (and possibly result in parallel civil and criminal enforcement). This happened to two companies in the food industry — Chipotle Mexican Grill and Blue Bell Creameries LP — who recently resolved criminal probes (through a deferred prosecution agreement and guilty plea, respectively) related to food safety failures that sickened customers.

The risk that a compliance or regulatory violation could result in customer illness could become a criminal matter is heightened in the ever-changing COVID-19 landscape, which presents novel challenges for operations and customer safety. For example, as the pandemic started, the media began questioning cruise ship companies' preventive measures regarding coronavirus transmission and passenger safety. Government investigations soon followed. Jacquie McNish et al., "Cruise Ships Set Sail Knowing the Deadly Risk to Passengers and Crew," Wall St. J. (May 1, 2020) (U.S. Coast Guard investigating whether cruise ships violated federal law by failing to alert health authorities to sick travelers disembarking at U.S. ports).

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.

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.

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.

Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York Image

In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?

Fresh Filings Image

Notable recent court filings in entertainment law.