Identity Theft: The Next Corporate Liability Wave?
January 26, 2005
The FTC estimates that over 24 million people in the United States have had their identity stolen. Using the $11,000 damage figure per case developed above, that represents over $26 billion of potential liability if fault can be ascribed to the data holder. Customer and employee databases are prime targets for identity thieves because a single vulnerability in a company's information security can yield access to personal data on thousands of persons. In addition to the growing threat of class-action lawsuits, new laws are coming into effect to hold organizations responsible for securing personal data. Companies should evaluate this risk and consider taking action to reduce their potential liability.
New Steps for an Effective Company Compliance Program
January 26, 2005
U.S. Sentencing Commission statistics indicate that companies charged with federal crimes have been doing an awful job of creating effective programs to detect and deter employees' criminal acts. According to the Commission, of the more than 850 companies convicted of crimes from 1995 through 2002, only two had a compliance program that a federal judge recognized as effective. In one respect, this is not surprising, as federal prosecutors routinely argue that if a company had an effective compliance program, the company wouldn't have committed the crime in the first place, and the court wouldn't be spending its time in a sentencing hearing.
In The Courts
January 26, 2005
Recent rulings of importance to you and your practice.
Supreme Court's Sentencing Guidelines Decision
January 26, 2005
On Jan. 12, the Supreme Court, in <i>United States v. Booker</i>, found portions of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines unconstitutional. For the last few years, corporate officers and directors have been forced to take a personal interest in criminal justice and in the Sentencing Guidelines. This has been especially true after the United States Sentencing Commission raised the guideline's penalties for white-collar crime in response to the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002.
State Enforcement: An Interview with Eliot Spitzer
January 26, 2005
The corporate scandals of the past several years have shaken the investing public. In response, state attorneys general like New York's Eliot Spitzer have shown what state regulators can accomplish with an ambitious agenda, talented personnel, and the right statutory tools. With Attorney General Spitzer leading the charge, state attorneys general have played an increasingly active role in matters traditionally handled without state intrusion by the SEC and other federal regulators. This increased state activism has not been free of controversy. In a recent interview, we asked Spitzer about the causes and consequences of that activism and what the future holds. His answers, and the recent activities of his counterparts in other states, confirm that state attorneys general are in no hurry to return to the status quo ante. Like it or not, the states are here to stay.
Investigating Fraudulent Claims: The Role of SIU
December 30, 2004
Previously we have addressed the issues of fraud at the inception of an insurance claim, a carrier's analysis of fraudulent claims and the use of forensic experts to investigate and defend claims. This article will focus on the role of the carrier's Special Investigation Unit ("SIU") in investigating and defending against fraudulent insurance claims and the role of SIU counsel in the investigative process.
Daubert Motions in Business Crimes Cases
December 27, 2004
White-collar defense attorneys face many challenges to overcome in successfully representing their clients. In federal criminal cases, the challenges have increased dramatically due to the heightened punishments that can be assessed against "non-cooperating" individuals or businesses who insist upon their rights to a trial. Consider the recent case of Jamie Olis, a mid-level accountant at an energy company, who (unlike two of his superiors) went to trial and was convicted of various fraud charges for having engaged in "income-smoothing" or "cookie-jar accounting" of the company's earnings history to try to help the company meet its earnings expectations. Although Olis received no financial benefit for his misguided efforts, he got 24 years' imprisonment (compared with his cooperative bosses, whose sentences were capped at a 5-year maximum under plea agreements). The sentence was largely due to the calculations of the "amount of loss."
One FCPA World
December 27, 2004
Suppose a group of officers of one of your foreign-based corporate clients, with no offices or businesses in the United States, makes a rare visit to the U.S. for an industry-related conference. Between sessions, they break off to participate in a conference call with employees overseas. The subject is whether to authorize political contributions in another country in the hope of getting business there, and they tell their compatriots to proceed. As soon as the conference is over, they head home. Can this one call be the basis for an assertion of U.S. jurisdiction over your client and the officers under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA)? Surprisingly, the answer is yes, in spite of the entirely accidental nature of the contact.
