Statements During Settlement Negotiations As Evidence in a Criminal Trial
November 28, 2005
Your client, a corporate executive, is being investigated in connection with whether the stock of her employer was artificially inflated. The company is in a "full cooperation mode" with the SEC and the DOJ, and is negotiating the terms of a consent decree. You learn that the company's attorneys have met with DOJ and SEC attorneys and have admitted (as they felt was necessary to maintain credibility) to certain wrongdoing by various corporate employees. Can the company's statements during negotiations be used against your client, or are they protected by Rule 408 Fed. R. Evid.?
Cooperating with NYSE Member Reviews
November 28, 2005
The framework that prosecutors and regulators use to assess a corporation's response to corporate wrongdoing changed forever on June 16, 1999. That day, then-Deputy Attorney General Eric Holder announced DOJ's new principles for the prosecution of corporations. The so-called Holder Memorandum emphasized cooperation with prosecutors and the requirement that corporations make full and voluntary disclosure of wrongdoing if they hoped to avoid or mitigate prosecution. The twin themes of cooperation and disclosure have become the standards by which federal and state prosecutors and regulators now judge a corporation's response to instances of corporate misbehavior.
Make It Go Away!
October 28, 2005
Your client company is a target of a criminal investigation. You've read in the news about "Deferred Prosecution Agreements" and you even pulled out your old Business Crimes Bulletin for an early article on the topic ("Make It Go Away," March 2003). Can you get one for your client? What will it look like? What terms can you negotiate?
Recent Fallout from Corporate Cooperation
October 28, 2005
Ever since the indictment and demise of Arthur Andersen in 2002, the stakes for businesses under governmental scrutiny could not be higher. The pressure on companies to cooperate and reach agreement with government investigators is no longer simply a matter of "doing the right thing," but has become a practical necessity for survival. Issues being litigated in two high-profile cases right now -- one involving the Enron Task Force's prosecution of Messrs. Lay, Skilling and Causey, and the other involving an investigation by the Connecticut Attorney General's office into corporate governance issues at Mass Mutual -- are exposing severe pressure points, and potentially serious breaking points, in the current realm of corporate cooperation.
Hard Times for Whistleblowers
October 28, 2005
Headlines describing $500-plus million settlements with the Department of Justice (DOJ) in False Claims Act (FCA) cases initiated by whistleblowers -- often former employees of defense contractors, pharmaceutical companies, and others doing business with the government -- have encouraged many disgruntled employees to try it themselves. But they can have a hard time making their own case if the government declines to intervene. Although the 1986 FCA amendments generally made the private action more available, the courts' interpretation of the FCA has not been easy on whistleblowers who stand in court without the United States at their side. As judges weed out unworthy cases, two trends run against the legislative goal of encouraging more whistleblowers, and invite instead a tactical corporate response that undercuts the legislative goal.
Trends in Corporate Fraud Enforcement
October 03, 2005
For high-profile defendants, timing is everything. In 1989, former junk bond king Michael Milken was indicted on RICO violations, stock manipulation and insider trading. After Milken pleaded guilty to securities, mail and tax fraud and market manipulation, he was sentenced to 10 years in prison, with anticipated actual service of 40 months. Due to cooperation and good behavior, Milken emerged from prison after serving less than 2 years, with a personal fortune in place. He has remained a power broker in financial and charitable circles since his release. In 2005, former WorldCom, Inc. CEO Bernard Ebbers was indicted for conspiracy, securities fraud and filing false statements with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) after WorldCom announced that it had overstated earnings. After a New York jury found Ebbers guilty, Judge Barbara Jones sentenced 63-year-old- Ebbers -- a first-time violator -- to 25 years in prison, of which he must serve at least 21.
New Agreements with Europe
October 03, 2005
Conscientious corporate counsel and other careful practitioners soon should familiarize themselves with yet another prosecutorial and investigative weapon devised and implemented as a result of the terrorist attacks of 9/11. Prompted by an idea to promote cooperation between the European Union (EU) and the United States in fighting terrorism, the EU-U.S. Agreements on Extradition and Mutual Legal Assistance ("the Agreements"), once in effect, will provide new and powerful weapons for police and prosecutors on both sides of the pond. While the Agreements were created for a noble cause, their reach and grasp beyond terrorist activity is potentially troubling.
