Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] 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).
*May exclude premium content
By Jonathan B. New, Jimmy Fokas, Patrick T. Campbell and Bari R. Nadworny
In recent months, the Dept. of Justice has raised expectations for companies to use data analytics to monitor the effectiveness of their compliance programs and to identify potential misconduct.
A roundtable discussion on the topic of government investigations, corporate compliance efforts, and the potential for fraud or misbehavior in the time of COVID-19.
By Steven Paradise and Matthew Catalano
Gamm v. Sanderson Farms, establishes a high burden for a plaintiff to plead adequately failure to disclose illegal conduct — regardless of how much circumstantial evidence a plaintiff is able to amass or how much news coverage the alleged conduct attracts.
By Jacqueline C. Wolff
Something Old, Something New, Something Borrowed, Something Blue
this second edition contains some new “hypotheticals” — facts of actual cases the DOJ finds important enough to focus on — and, in keeping true to its name, has included additional resources and links for chief compliance officers looking to design and audit their companies’ anticorruption compliance programs.