Another View: Corporate Cooperation Taken to New Lows
The Deferred Prosecution Agreement (DPA) entered into between KPMG and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York on Aug. 29, 2005, is just the latest example of the federal government's perverting the notion of corporate cooperation, so that 'cooperation' means uttering only the words that the government authorizes. Corpora-tions are increasingly faced with the option of being put out of business or capitulating to the demands of overzealous prosecutors who possess seemingly unchecked powers. The ability of prosecutors to force corporations to accept a full complement of draconian provisions too frequently results in individual employees' being left behind to take the fall for the 'good' of the company. KPMG's acceptance of the terms of the DPA is a clear example of how these prosecutorial powers can strip individuals of their constitutional rights.
Compliance Tips from Deferred Prosecution Agreements
In recent years, increasing numbers of large corporations have, in the hope of avoiding a conviction and all the ramifications a conviction entails, entered into Deferred Prosecution Agreements (DPAs) with the Department of Justice (DOJ). Much has been written about the lack of bargaining power companies have in negotiating these deals, and about the onerous nature of some of their terms. In this article, we suggest that companies can use the DPAs entered into by others to their advantage by treating them as guides to assist them in formulating their own compliance programs. Not only should this result in strengthened programs, but should a compliance problem nevertheless arise, having a 'government-issued' program in place could provide a company with a strong argument that it has done the most it can in formulating an effective program and hence should not be subject to prosecution.
Internet Disclosures Can Cost Your Company
As the Internet opens pathways to doing business that could scarcely be imagined a decade ago, it also presents increasing dangers to public companies in the form of new liability risks. The instantaneous nature of the Internet can be both boon and bane to companies seeking to harness it to provide information to, and create goodwill with, shareholders. Not only can information be disseminated over the Net in a fraction of a second for worldwide viewing, but it has become a predominant source of investment news. Financial updates, product developments, information tidbits, even rumors ' all are now posted 24/7 on the Web for consumption by anyone, including investors who are poised to take advantage of the latest intelligence.
The Whens and Whys of Asserting Fifth Amendment Privileges
The Fifth Amendment's protection against self-incrimination is one of the foundational rights of the America justice system. It provides that "no person ... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." It protects witnesses from what Justice Field called the "cruel trilemma of self-accusation, perjury, or contempt." <i>Brown v. Walker</i>, 161 U.S. 591, 637 (1896) (Field, J., dissenting). In this post-Enron era of corporate prosecutions, it is critical that corporate insiders understand the scope of the Fifth Amendment's protection.
Is Your Hotline AAA-Rated?
Many organizations have hotlines that are needlessly weak or even ineffective, and they often don't even know it. There are no up-to-date, authoritative standards for hotlines. This has forced SEC registrants and their auditors to use an unusually high degree of judgment in evaluating the effectiveness of hotlines for Sarbanes-Oxley ' 404 reporting. Non-registrants are even more vulnerable to "phantom hotline syndrome."
Parallel Proceedings: Establishing the Boundaries
An investigation by the SEC is always cause for great concern by corporations, executives and their attorneys. In recent years, there has been reason for even greater concern due to prosecutors' increased focus on corporate fraud and the resulting increase in "parallel proceedings." Parallel proceedings involve simultaneous or successive investigations and/or litigation of separate criminal and civil actions by different government agencies arising out of the same set of facts. This trend requires defense counsel to assess whether corporations and individuals may be subjects of a criminal investigation in cases that would not have given rise to such scrutiny several years ago. Faced with possible criminal liability, clients and counsel must carefully evaluate and weigh the potential benefits of cooperating in an SEC civil investigation versus the very real possibility of furnishing incriminating information to the government for use in a criminal proceeding.
Over-Assertion of Attorney-Client Privilege
Buried deep within the 69-page superseding indictment in the KPMG tax fraud case lies a development with the potential to chill the assertion of the attorney-client privilege by defense attorneys in criminal conspiracy cases. In the conspiracy count in <i>United States v. Stein et al.<i>, the wrongful assertion of the attorney-client privilege has been charged as a central aspect of the crime itself, both as part of the means and methods of the conspiracy and as an overt act in furtherance. This aggressive charging decision may cause some members of the defense bar to think twice about asserting the privilege in close cases -- even where it is being asserted legitimately -- for fear that their claim of privilege may overreach, thus inadvertently implicating them in the underlying conspiracy.
