Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
For a person under criminal investigation, the image is a frightening one. There is pounding at your front door during the early morning hours. A voice yells, 'FBI! Open the door!' You throw on clothes, head to the front door and as you open it, agents rush by you into your living room. The FBI agent with whom your attorney has been dealing for months tells you, 'We have a warrant for your arrest. You'll have to come with us.' Your spouse and children, who have been awakened by the agents, are now seated in your living room. Your hands are cuffed behind your back and you are led from your home. Remarkably, all you can think about at this moment is that your lawyer told you the government does not arrest people in these kinds of cases. Your lawyer was wrong.
Features
The Congressional response to the scandals of Enron and its corporate cousins was not exactly laser-guided. Much ado already has been made about many provisions of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (the Act), but one that has drawn little comment is its unprecedented, sweeping and <i>criminal</i> whistleblower law. The new criminal statute reaches far beyond the abuses that spawned the Act ' securities and accounting frauds of publicly traded companies.
Features
Forget about Global Crossing, WorldCom, and Enron. These are extreme examples of corporate misconduct. The more typical criminal case against a corporation involves greater ambiguity and often turns on the actions of a very few individuals, or perhaps even one employee acting alone. The vicarious liability case law that is the vehicle for all corporate prosecutions casts a very broad net. An individual need only be acting pursuant to his or her duties (or even apparent duties) in order to create criminal liability for the corporation as a whole.
Recent corporate accounting scandals have brought to light disturbing revelations concerning the business practices of many American companies. New — and more severe — penalties for corporate fraud in the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 have caused companies to step up their internal efforts to detect and prevent wrongdoing.
Recent rulings of interest to you and your practice.
Features
Analysis of the latest cases of importance to your practice.
Features
As discussed on page 1 of this newsletter, the SEC recently issued 'Standards of Professional Conduct' for attorneys representing issuers before the SEC ' a new rule mandated by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. <i>See</i> 15 U.S.C. ' 7201 <i>et. seq.</i> The Standards clarify an attorney's 'up-the-ladder' corporate reporting responsibilities imposed by the Act. 17 C.F.R. ' 205.
They're finally here. Sort of. On January 29, 2003, the SEC issued its long-awaited, much-debated rules implementing 'Standards of Professional Conduct for Attorneys' pursuant to Section 307 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. But the rule-making process is far from over.
Features
Imagine the following scenario: The CEO of a large public company (with approximately 1 billion shares outstanding, considerably fewer than General Electric, Microsoft or General Motors) pleads guilty to a material misrepresentation in the company's financial reports, which, according to the government, when disclosed caused the company's stock to drop 50 cents per share.
Features
Recent cases of importance to your practice.