In The Courts
December 27, 2004
The latest rulings you need to know.
Internal Investigations and Outside Auditors
December 27, 2004
The Problem: You are the CEO of a publicly traded company that has been rocked by a highly publicized scandal. When the story first broke, your General Counsel told you that the company had to hire an outside law firm to conduct an internal investigation. She also told you that the report of the internal review might have to be turned over to DOJ and the SEC if those agencies insisted on having a copy. You worried about whether plaintiffs in the inevitable shareholder lawsuits would claim that they, too, were entitled to copies of the report, but you deferred to the judgment of your General Counsel and authorized the internal review. Now a new issue has arisen. Long before DOJ or the SEC asks for the results of the internal investigation, and well before a single shareholder suit is filed, your General Counsel gets a call from your company's outside auditor saying that they want a copy of the internal review. You ask your General Counsel whether providing the report to your auditor will waive its privileged status. She says the answer probably is "no." Is your General Counsel right?
In The Courts
November 29, 2004
Recent rulings of importance to you and your practice.
The IRS Office of Professional Responsibility
November 29, 2004
As many criminal practitioners are acutely aware, the Internal Revenue Service has recently ramped up compliance and enforcement efforts with budget increases and enhanced resources. A lesser-known component of this revitalized enforcement is the IRS Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), which is charged with regulating professionals - mostly lawyers and accountants -- who practice before the IRS. OPR enforces ethical rules that govern practice before the Service, commonly known as "Circular 230," and may sanction practitioners who violate those rules. Because OPR matters can interact with the criminal process in many respects, conscientious white-collar practitioners and corporate tax counsel should familiarize themselves with OPR and its power over tax professionals.
SOX Lowers the Bar for Barring Directors and Officers
November 29, 2004
Banishment from the public company world -- through the enforcement of a D&O bar - used to be an extreme remedy for management misconduct. Now, the trend has turned, with Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX) and the current enforcement climate leading to a flood of requests for bars. In 2000, the SEC asked federal courts to impose 38 D&O bars, 7.5% of the cases initiated that year. In 2001, the SEC asked for 51 D&O bars, or 10.5%. In 2002, in the wake of corporate scandals that gave rise to Sarbanes-Oxley, the SEC requested 126 D&O bars, in 21% of initiated actions. In 2003, that number shot up to 170, in 25% of cases. As Stephen Cutler, the head of the SEC's Enforcement Division, recently explained, the SEC is "aggressively" seeking D&O bars "in expanded ways." Practitioners are now finding D&O bars to be a routine component of settling an SEC action.
Should You Tell Employees How Their Company Can Get Immunity From Prosecution?
November 29, 2004
The landscape has changed for many senior executives and other employees of corporations subject to government investigation. Two recent cases show how prosecutors virtually forced companies to "turn in" suspect executives and other employees to avoid prosecution. Amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines, effective Nov. 1, 2004, incorporate this change in the way courts will assess a corporation's compliance program.
Disclosing Client Confidences - An Update
November 01, 2004
In the February 2003 edition of this Bulletin, I commented on the then recently issued "final" Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX) Rules on Standards of Professional Conduct for Attorneys. The "final" rules were not in fact final, because the SEC both had sought additional comments on the rules and had proposed, and sought comments on, a modified form of its controversial proposed "noisy withdrawal" rules. Since then, there has been no further word from the SEC about when and how a lawyer for a company or business executive is required or permitted to report client misconduct to a third party, including regulators and law enforcement authorities. But that does not mean all has been quiet. Significant changes have been made by the ABA to the Model Rules of Professional Conduct in this area and by international organizations wrestling with the role of lawyers in anti-money laundering compliance efforts.
Document Destruction Horror Stories
November 01, 2004
Three recent cases involving government inquiries provide sobering lessons about electronic evidence to corporations and their lawyers. The most notorious, <i>U.S. v. Arthur Andersen, LLP</i>, resulted in criminal convictions. Another, <i>In the Matter of Banc of America Securities LLC</i>, involved SEC enforcement action. The third, <i>United States v. Philip Morris</i>, arose in a Department of Justice civil suit. If nothing else, the cases demonstrate that corporations exposed to such investigations must implement effective and well-maintained information management systems.
