In the Courts
November 28, 2006
Recent rulings of importance to you and your practice.
Stock Option Backdating
November 28, 2006
Just as the business community began making headway with Congress to reduce Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX) obligations, a new type of corporate wrongdoing has been revealed ' backdated stock options used by the executives at many companies and some directors to convert their options at the most opportune times and at the expense of other shareholders and investors. What is troubling is how the boards of directors at so many companies could have approved the backdating or not known about it after SOX and the recent wave of high-profile corporate fraud investigations and prosecutions.
One Size Fits All?
November 28, 2006
Today, a Procrustean 'one-size-fits-all' approach increasingly characterizes federal appellate practice, particularly for attorneys who handle complex conspiracy or white-collar cases. While page limits for appellate briefs date back to at least the 1940s, within the past 20 years they have been applied with a new and sometimes surprising inflexibility. No matter how long the trial, how complicated its facts, or how numerous the appellate issues may be, the day has passed when counsel can assume that requests to file a brief in excess of the standard word limits will be granted.
Rethinking Corporate Cooperation
November 28, 2006
In the post-Enron world, many public companies have come under intense scrutiny from the government. A diverse chorus of critics argues that the Department of Justice (DOJ) has gone too far, citing the overzealousness of line-level prosecutors, their failure to adhere to the measured tone struck by higher-level officials in their public pronouncements, and their general tendency to treat companies as racketeering organizations.
Representing the Corporate Executive
October 30, 2006
As a result of the Seaboard Release (SEC, 2001) and the Thompson Memorandum, potential conflicts in representing both a corporation and its officers and executive employees have become more frequent. The corporation, in order to avoid prosecution and limit its exposure to civil damages, must promptly conduct an internal investigation and turn over the results of that investigation to the appropriate governmental agency as soon as possible. This may not be the best way to defend executives exposed to criminal liability.
Government Pressure on Employers
October 30, 2006
A white-collar criminal investigation, a business entity seeking to cooperate, and individual employees talking to the prosecutors ' all familiar scenarios to anyone experienced in federal criminal law. Recently, however, these elements combined to produce an unusual result: the suppression of the employees' statements to the government as involuntary under the Fifth Amendment. U.S. District Judge Lewis A. Kaplan issued this ruling in the KPMG tax shelter prosecution, finding that the prosecutors, through their pressure on KPMG, economically coerced the company's employees to speak with the government in violation of their privilege against self-incrimination. Once again, the government's overly aggressive interpretation of the Thompson Memo has come back to haunt it.
DOJ Pressure to Cut Loose Employees Under Investigation
October 30, 2006
Two months ago, the American Bar Association House of Delegates adopted a 'recommendation' stating opposition to prosecutors' and other enforcement officials' taking into consideration 'any of the following factors in making a determination of whether an organization has been cooperative in the context of a government investigation: 1) that the organization provided counsel to, or advanced, reimbursed or indemnified the legal fees and expenses of, an Employee; 2) that the organization entered into or continues to operate under a joint defense, information sharing and common interest agreement with an Employee or other represented party with whom the organization believes it has a common interest in defending against the investigation; 3) that the organization shared its records or other historical information relating to the matter under investigation with an Employee; or 4) that the organization chose to retain or otherwise declined to sanction an Employee who exercised his or her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination in response. This article discusses the recommendation and the events that led to it.
