Corporate Employees Need Protection from Overzealous Prosecutors
The KPMG tax shelter case brought to light heavy-handed attempts by federal prosecutors to exert economic coercion on indicted former KMPG partners and deprive them of the counsel of their choice, of resources that would otherwise be available for their defense, and of their Fifth Amendment right against compelled self-incrimination. Judge Lewis A. Kaplan's landmark decisions on motions by various defendants held many of the government's actions unlawful. <i>See United States v. Stein</i>, 488 F Supp. 2d 350 (S.D.N.Y. 2007); 435 F. Supp. 2d 330 (S.D.N.Y. 2006). But what are counsel for corporate employees to do when prosecutors attack their clients' reputation and pocketbook, but there's no judge to complain to?
Deferred Prosecution Agreements and Privileged Documents
XYZ Inc. settles a federal criminal investigation by signing a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA). Now its attorneys think the company and its privileged documents are safe so long as XYZ stays out of trouble. But have they closed the barn door after the horse has run away? A little-noticed holding by Judge Lewis A. Kaplan in the KPMG tax shelter case suggests that a DPA may open privileged documents to defendants in criminal trials and even to civil litigants.
Defendants' Pretrial Access to Documents in White-Collar Prosecutions
Accused of withholding a DNA report favorable to the defendants in the Duke lacrosse case, Durham, NC, District Attorney Mike Nifong reached for an argument familiar to defense attorneys: Even if he didn't produce a report identifying exculpatory DNA results, he did produce documents containing those results ' among over a 1,000 pages of related documents produced before trial. Of course, the North Carolina Bar found that Nifong did more than simply bury favorable evidence in a document production. Assume, however, that he had produced exculpatory DNA results, and even a report explaining them, in thousands of pages of documents, but defense counsel didn't find them. Did he satisfy his disclosure obligations?
Company Interviews of Employees Suspected of Wrongdoing
Since Sarbanes-Oxley ('SOX') became law in 2002, companies have had a heightened interest in determining if there has been wrongdoing within their business. When a company has reason to believe that one or more employees may have engaged in practices that could expose it and them to civil lawsuits, regulatory actions or criminal charges, good business practice calls for the company to find out what occurred, who was involved, how extensive the conduct was, and how it happened. From the very beginning of this process, a particularly difficult issue is what employees interviewed in the company's investigation should be told about getting their own lawyers.
10b5 -1 Plan Abuse
Last month, we wrote that the latest hot topic in corporate executive abuses may be manipulation of traders under prearranged Rule 10b5-1. We said that once a determination is made to review the historical operation of a 10b5-1 plan, reviewers should consider as a threshold issue whether they are sufficiently independent from the subject plans and traders to be properly regarded as objective. We continue with a list that describes several steps that could be taken to reveal some of the 10b5-1 plan abuses that commentators speculate may exist.
Prosecution and Defense of Stock Option Backdating Cases
Backdating is different from conduct typically alleged as stock fraud because it is not in itself illegal. So long as the backdating of options is accompanied by proper accounting treatment and public disclosure, there is no securities law violation. Backdating cases thus have come to be thought of largely as accounting cases. As a result, a potent potential defense has emerged for corporate officers who may have known backdating was occurring but, because they did not have hands-on responsibility for their company's financial or accounting practices, were unaware of the accounting or disclosure consequences of that practice.
Complying with the FCPA in Emerging Markets After SOX
The recent settlement of parallel FCPA actions in the Southern District of Texas against Baker Hughes, Inc., a major oilfield service company, and its wholly owned subsidiary Baker Hughes Services International Inc. (collectively 'Baker Hughes'), underscores the importance of complying with the FCPA's provisions in emerging markets.
Foreign Companies Prosecuted in the U.S. for Bribes Overseas
In an effort to level the playing field for U.S. businesses overseas, many OECD countries adopted the Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions in 1998. Nearly 10 years later, the main result may have been to enlarge the playing field of U.S. law enforcement.
