LJN Newsletters

As everyone knows, Hurricane Katrina devastated the residents and businesses of the Gulf Coast, causing massive damage and loss in Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and elsewhere. The sheer expenditure of time and resources in rebuilding the region will no doubt be enormous. In recognition of the magnitude of the disaster and the likelihood of a long and costly recovery, the federal government has taken both legislative and regulatory action in response. Many of these government actions have direct impact on employment practices.

Devastating meteorological events such as Hurricane Katrina, or the major earthquake long prophesied for the West Coast -- only reinforce that every employer should develop and be prepared to implement a disaster plan. The specifics of plans will be as varied as employers' businesses, as they should be tailored to the products or services the company provides, its location, the number of employees it has, and the type of business disruption the company may be likely to face. Whatever its specific contours, however, the cornerstone of any emergency management plan is ensuring that a business can continue to run, even when its usual mode of doing business is effectively shut down. Far from being a knee-jerk responses to sensational events, such preparations should be considered just another form of business contingency planning.

Considering how much damage can result from something as innocuous as a faulty sprinkler system, it may be understandable that many law firm disaster planners previously gave their first attention to common threats, and then never got around to considering large-scale disasters. Firm planners could pat themselves on the back if they maintained proper fire safeguards, kept the firm properly insured, arranged for regular backups of key data files, and the like.

National rulings of interest.

Your client, a corporate executive, is being investigated in connection with whether the stock of her employer was artificially inflated. The company is in a "full cooperation mode" with the SEC and the DOJ, and is negotiating the terms of a consent decree. You learn that the company's attorneys have met with DOJ and SEC attorneys and have admitted (as they felt was necessary to maintain credibility) to certain wrongdoing by various corporate employees. Can the company's statements during negotiations be used against your client, or are they protected by Rule 408 Fed. R. Evid.?

A combination of factors has coalesced to spell trouble, or at least unwelcome complications, for federal prosecutors and aspiring cooperators and their counsel in the white-collar criminal arena. The factors include the political ambitions of state attorneys general (AGs), the broad overlap of state and federal financial-fraud crimes, the fully justified emphasis of federal prosecutors on pursuing nationwide financial-fraud offenses, and the persistence of the federal courts in refusing to limit the outmoded "dual sovereignty" doctrine that allows concurrent or consecutive federal and state prosecutions for the same offenses.

Recent rulings of importance to you and your practice.

The framework that prosecutors and regulators use to assess a corporation's response to corporate wrongdoing changed forever on June 16, 1999. That day, then-Deputy Attorney General Eric Holder announced DOJ's new principles for the prosecution of corporations. The so-called Holder Memorandum emphasized cooperation with prosecutors and the requirement that corporations make full and voluntary disclosure of wrongdoing if they hoped to avoid or mitigate prosecution. The twin themes of cooperation and disclosure have become the standards by which federal and state prosecutors and regulators now judge a corporation's response to instances of corporate misbehavior.