There have been numerous developments in U.S. criminal antitrust law over the last half-decade ' in legislation, judicial opinions, and the publicly stated enforcement policy of the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice (DOJ). While none have been watershed events individually, in the aggregate they fundamentally impact representation of companies or individuals under investigation for antitrust violations. This article outlines the cumulative effect of these developments and indicates how representation of companies under antitrust investigation has changed over this period.
A 2007 study by the author's firm's Deloitte Forensic Center revealed relatively weak performance in many companies' fraud controls, raising concerns about the effectiveness of key aspects of corporate compliance, ethics and risk management programs. In-house counsel should consider how the findings might apply to their companies and what remedial steps they can take.
John and Timothy Rigas ('the Rigases') were convicted in 2004 by a federal jury for their roles in looting millions of dollars from Adelphia Communications Co. and for failing to disclose billions of dollars in company liabilities on Adelphia's financial statements. In their appeal to the Second Circuit, the Rigases argued that because their convictions were predicated on Adelphia's accounting for liabilities in its financial statements, the prosecution was required to call an accounting expert to explain the technical aspects of applicable Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP). The Second Circuit recently affirmed all but one of the counts of convictions. Here is an analysis of the case.
The authors are longtime members of the ABA Section of Taxation Civil and Criminal Tax Penalties Committee. Their thrice-annual Saturday morning meetings used to involve continuing education only among lawyers joined by the common bond of representing clients who were not just aggressive in their tax affairs but who really cheated (or at least were thought to have by the government). For the past few years, though, their sessions have been packed with practitioners who never before cared much about developments in the world of criminal tax law. Here's why.
'Parallel proceedings' is a term with which white-collar criminal defense lawyers and in-house counsel are very familiar. It describes the private civil actions that often are concurrently filed when a criminal investigation or charges are disclosed. The civil impact of criminal investigations and prosecutions begin and continue long after resolution of the criminal case. Indeed, once the corporation's alleged fraudulent actions or resulting settlement become public knowledge, often it is only a matter of time before an action is filed against its officers and directors.
Most attorneys involved in the investigation or defense of complex business crimes will turn to private investigators to assist them in developing the facts. Given the breadth and nature of many modern criminal investigations, the use of private investigators is almost becoming a necessity. Yet many basic rules governing their use are unclear or in flux, especially when it comes to monitoring or gathering electronic information.
This article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.
Most experienced intellectual property attorneys understand the significant role surveys play in trademark infringement and other Lanham Act cases, but relatively few are likely to have considered the use of such research in patent infringement matters. That could soon change in light of the recent admission of a survey into evidence in <i>Applera Corporation, et al. v. MJ Research, Inc., et al.</i>, No. 3:98cv1201 (D. Conn. Aug. 26, 2005). The survey evidence, which showed that 96% of the defendant's customers used its products to perform a patented process, was admitted as evidence in support of a claim of inducement to infringe. The court admitted the survey into evidence over various objections by the defendant, who had argued that the inducement claim could not be proven without the survey.
The parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.
The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
