In the Courts
February 27, 2007
Recent rulings of importance to you and your practice.
Complaints of Judicial Misconduct
February 27, 2007
As counsel in a hotly contested case, you suspect that the presiding federal judge has engaged in judicial misconduct. What are your options? Should you overlook the alleged misconduct for fear of incurring the judge's wrath and perhaps prejudicing your case? Is there a formal procedure for filing a complaint of judicial misconduct? Many in-house counsel and practitioners alike are unfamiliar with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. ' 351 et seq., and the Rules Governing Complaints of Judicial Misconduct and Disability adopted by each of the federal circuits, which govern the handling of complaints of judicial misconduct or disability.
Electronic Records
February 27, 2007
In <i>Arthur Andersen LLP v. United States</i>, 125 S. Ct. 2129, 235 (2005), the Supreme Court acknowledged the importance of records management policies that provide for the routine destruction of unneeded records under ordinary circumstances. It is, however, common knowledge that such policies should ordinarily be suspended once an investigation or litigation is reasonably anticipated. This is normally accomplished through the imposition of a 'litigation hold,' the process of notifying employees of their obligations to preserve all potentially relevant records while continuing the routine destruction of non-relevant active and archived data. This may be a company's first line of defense against claims of spoliation or obstruction. The failure to suspend routine purges of records in the face of litigation has contributed to the imposition of sanctions as high as $1.45 billion on companies.
The Changing Face of FDA Consent Decrees
February 27, 2007
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.
Bragging Rights
February 22, 2007
For years, I've been bragging about our Law Journal Newsletters, and I often get the same response: 'But isn't all that information right on the Web? Why not just Google it?' The answer: Yes and No.
In the Courts
January 30, 2007
The latest verdicts you need to know.
Be Careful What You Wish For
January 30, 2007
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.
Voluntary Disclosures Under the FCPA
January 30, 2007
<i>' ' [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 ' '</i> 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 McNulty Memorandum
January 30, 2007
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.
