Benchmarking Your Whistleblower Hotline
ABC Company was overconfident about the effectiveness of its hotline, which was producing only about 25% of the industry average call volume. XYZ Inc.'s hotline had a similar issue, generating only 15%. In both instances, using a breakthrough benchmarking study, we identified the low usage and recommended potential remediation steps.
Can Disclosure Set You Free?
The misappropriation theory of insider trading, which was first recognized by the Supreme Court in <i>United States v. O'Hagan</i>, 521 U.S. 642 (1997), establishes liability for individuals who are not typical 'insiders' of companies and also appears to offer such defendants a specific defense to insider trading charges. The O'Hagan Court based the misappropriation theory on a duty owed by the defendant to the source of non-public material information, rather than to the shareholders of the company whose stock was being traded. Because a defendant prosecuted under the misappropriation theory had a duty only to his source, the Court explained that a defendant's disclosure to the source of information prior to trading or tipping could neutralize the acts of deception necessary for a securities fraud claim.
Lessens for Counsel After Hewlett-Packard
Indictments and resignations following an internal investigation are not necessarily surprising. In the case of the Hewlett-Packard ('HP') investigation, however, it's the investigators who are in dire straits. In the months since HP publicly announced that it had conducted an internal investigation into news leaks by corporate directors, its Chairman and General Counsel have resigned, criminal charges have been filed against those involved in the investigation, and one person has pled guilty. HP exemplifies the pitfalls and problems that can result from an internal investigation itself, for both the company and its counsel. As one Congressman asked: 'Where were the lawyers? There were red flags waving all over the place,' but 'none of the lawyers stepped up to their responsibilities.'
In the Courts
Recent rulings of importance to you and your practice.
Complaints of Judicial Misconduct
As counsel in a hotly contested case, you suspect that the presiding federal judge has engaged in judicial misconduct. What are your options? Should you overlook the alleged misconduct for fear of incurring the judge's wrath and perhaps prejudicing your case? Is there a formal procedure for filing a complaint of judicial misconduct? Many in-house counsel and practitioners alike are unfamiliar with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. ' 351 et seq., and the Rules Governing Complaints of Judicial Misconduct and Disability adopted by each of the federal circuits, which govern the handling of complaints of judicial misconduct or disability.
Electronic Records
In <i>Arthur Andersen LLP v. United States</i>, 125 S. Ct. 2129, 235 (2005), the Supreme Court acknowledged the importance of records management policies that provide for the routine destruction of unneeded records under ordinary circumstances. It is, however, common knowledge that such policies should ordinarily be suspended once an investigation or litigation is reasonably anticipated. This is normally accomplished through the imposition of a 'litigation hold,' the process of notifying employees of their obligations to preserve all potentially relevant records while continuing the routine destruction of non-relevant active and archived data. This may be a company's first line of defense against claims of spoliation or obstruction. The failure to suspend routine purges of records in the face of litigation has contributed to the imposition of sanctions as high as $1.45 billion on companies.
The Changing Face of FDA Consent Decrees
Historically, when a health care company had a compliance failure, counsel could help it remain in business by negotiating with the relevant agency. If the problem involved sales, marketing or pricing, the company could seek a Corporate Integrity Agreement (CIA) with the Office of Inspector General (OIG) at Health and Human Services (HHS). If the problems related to manufacturing, counsel could obtain a consent decree of permanent injunction ('consent decree') with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) under the Food Drug and Cosmetic Act (FDCA). Consent decrees and CIAs each had their particular burdens and benefits, which health care practitioners had learned to navigate. Now this tidy distinction has become blurred as the FDA has borrowed features from HHS's CIAs.
Bragging Rights
For years, I've been bragging about our Law Journal Newsletters, and I often get the same response: 'But isn't all that information right on the Web? Why not just Google it?' The answer: Yes and No.
