Regulation

When the dust settles from the current round of discussions on increasing the federal minimum wage, the lowest paid of the country's non-exempt employees may or may not be earning an additional dollar or two per hour. Either way, the debate will have drawn the country's ' and the plaintiffs' bars' ' attention toward the lowest paid of our country's workers, and the climate will be right for those attorneys to begin focusing not only on how much non-exempt employees are being paid per hour, but also on whether these workers are being paid in a manner that is consistent with every intricate (and often contrary-to-common-sense) twist and turn of federal and state law.

Historically, when a health care company had a compliance failure, counsel could help it remain in business by negotiating with the relevant agency. If the problem involved sales, marketing or pricing, the company could seek a Corporate Integrity Agreement (CIA) with the Office of Inspector General (OIG) at Health and Human Services (HHS). If the problems related to manufacturing, counsel could obtain a consent decree of permanent injunction ('consent decree') with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) under the Food Drug and Cosmetic Act (FDCA). Consent decrees and CIAs each had their particular burdens and benefits, which health care practitioners had learned to navigate. Now this tidy distinction has become blurred as the FDA has borrowed features from HHS's CIAs.

In this age of regulatory and prosecutorial focus on corporate compliance, companies increasingly are relying on special outside counsel to conduct internal investigations into potential wrongdoing. Sometimes, these investigations are prophylactic: A company may want to understand the consequences of its current hiring practices so it can develop standard operating procedures to better ensure compliance with anti-discrimination laws. Because this sort of proactive, self-reflective investigation generally proceeds without outside scrutiny, counsel has the time and space to conduct a deliberate investigation.

Although difficult to imagine, your best worker may hold the key to your company's worst security nightmare. Technologically armed employees who routinely use BlackBerry devices, personal digital assistants, laptops, and tiny flash drives to transport critical information to and from the office can wreak havoc on a corporation '' with no intention to do so.

With the amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP), precedent-setting adverse sanctions against some of the largest corporations and growing regulatory requirements, the need to become 'litigation ready' has been like a large snowball, gaining mass and momentum. The indisputable need to become litigation ready has arrived, and the snowball continues to get bigger and faster as it heads down the mountain. With the FRCP amendments, Dec. 1 has come and gone and guess what? Nothing has exploded.

In the wake of the demise of Arthur Andersen following the partnerships' indictment by the federal government, prosecutors are increasingly pressuring corporations to enter into deferred-prosecution agreements (DPAs) to avoid ' at least temporarily ' full-blown criminal prosecutions. While these agreements may seem to offer an attractive option to embattled companies faced with the prospect of a lengthy and potentially devastating criminal prosecution, the freedom with which the individual prosecutors operate when crafting the agreements should cause concern.

' ' [A]lthough nothing is off the table when you voluntarily disclose, I can tell you in unequivocal terms that you will get a real benefit ' ' Despite these heartening words by Assistant U.S. Attorney General Alice S. Fisher at a recent conference on the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), an attorney representing a corporation cannot recommend voluntary disclosure of potentially criminal FCPA activities without weighing the promise of a 'real benefit' against the very real risks.

The Department of Justice (DOJ), in the wake of increasing criticism of its policies on waiver of privileges by corporations and their advancement of legal fees to employees under investigation, issued a 21-page memorandum on Dec. 12, 2006, revising the 'Principles of Federal Prosecution of Business Corporations,' alias the Thompson Memorandum. The revised policy, embodied in a memorandum by Deputy Attorney General Paul D. McNulty, comes close on the heels of two influential attacks on the Thompson Memorandum: a bill sponsored by Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) that would prohibit prosecutors from pressing companies to waive privileges or cut off legal fees, and an opinion by Manhattan U. S. District Judge Lewis A. Kaplan, holding that prosecutors had violated the constitutional rights of former KPMG partners when they pressured KPMG to stop paying the ex-partners' lawyers.