Call 855-808-4530 or email GroupSales@alm.com to receive your discount on a new subscription.
For companies suspected of wrongdoing, cooperating with Department of Justice (DOJ) investigations and self-disclosing their misconduct often appears to be their only option to avoid prosecution and reduce large financial penalties. But, these benefits often come at a price, especially to company employees who are caught in the middle. To gain cooperation credit for voluntary self-disclosure, companies are expected to identify all relevant facts relating to the individuals responsible for the alleged misconduct. And as part of demonstrating their cooperation to the government, companies often pressure their employees to submit to interviews, including with DOJ, or risk losing their jobs and/or indemnification of legal fees. Such scenarios, which have become prevalent in today’s corporate enforcement environment, place employees “between the rock and the whirlpool” by arguably coercing their testimony and infringing on their constitutional right against self-incrimination. See, Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 U.S. 493, 498 (1967).
By Carolyn H. Kendall and Yune D. Emeritz
It is axiomatic that companies cannot do wrong without the actions of individuals. However, the trend over the past few decades, with a few exceptions, has been that individuals generally were not prosecuted for their roles in corporate wrongdoing that harmed the public welfare. However, there appears to be a recent escalation in prosecutions of corporate executives.
By Marjorie Peerce and Mark S. Kokanovich
Imagine you are in-house counsel, working on a transactional document, when you receive a breathless call from a manager at one of your warehouses that a search warrant is being executed on the premises. What do you do?
By Joseph F. Savage, Jr. and Marielle Sanchez
Elections have consequences, and the election of President Trump has resulted in a significant shift in law enforcement priorities. Corporate enforcement activity is at lows not seen in decades, despite an overall increase in federal criminal cases. This is a product of a change in priorities, both in terms of types of offenses and types of offender. So, for the time being, there will be almost unprecedented opportunity to achieve favorable resolutions for corporate clients.
By Harry Sandick and Danielle Quinn
A defendant who pleads guilty is usually required to waive a host of constitutional and statutory rights, such as the right to a jury trial, the right to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses, the right to testify and present evidence. However, many defendants are also required to waive their right to appeal in order to receive a favorable plea agreement with the government.