Call 855-808-4530 or email GroupSales@alm.com to receive your discount on a new subscription.
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. In response, the Department of Justice (DOJ) announced policies designed to obtain information from companies about culpable insiders in order to facilitate prosecutions of those responsible for corporate malfeasance. Initially, it was questionable whether these efforts would pay off. Now, with what appears to be a recent escalation in prosecutions of corporate executives, it seems that the government is beginning to hit its stride.
By Joseph F. Savage Jr. and Christopher J.C. Herbert
In an environment of aggressive federal prosecution and regulation both businesses and public officials are challenged to identify the permissible line between proper financial transactions — things like campaign contributions and business entertainment — and unlawful payments. And, in what the First Circuit called a “novel theory of Hobbs Act extortion,” public officials now have to struggle with the scope of permissible advocacy — when does advocacy for constituents become extortion?
By Harry Sandick and Tara Norris
Part One of a Two-Part Article
In its recently ended October Term 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court decided several notable criminal law decisions that will have a meaningful impact on white-collar practitioners’ work and, importantly, offer clues regarding the movement of the criminal law in subsequent terms. In this two-part article, we review several of the key decisions and consider their implications, both for practitioners in this area and for Court-watchers interested in future Court decisions.
By Robert J. Anello and Richard F. Albert
SEC Chairman Jay Clayton recently announced a change in how the SEC will consider requests for waivers of certain serious collateral consequences that would otherwise result from settlement of an SEC enforcement action. These collateral consequences, often referred to as “bad actor” or “bad boy” provisions, can vary greatly and may disqualify an entity from conducting certain business or utilizing certain means to offer securities.
By Juliet Gunev
Canadian Clean Fuel Technology Company and Former CEO Pay $4.1 Million to Settle China Related FCPA Case