A Blow to Private Whistleblowers
April 30, 2007
In a substantial win for businesses, the U.S. Supreme Court recently issued a decision imposing strict requirements for lawsuits by private whistleblowers. Under the federal False Claims Act, once allegations of fraud are publicly disclosed, a relator (as citizen-plaintiffs are called) may bring suit on the government's behalf only if the relator is an 'original source.' In <i>Rockwell International Corp. v. United States</i>, the Court rejected the notion that a relator need only have knowledge of background facts about alleged fraud, even if those facts preceded the fraud. Instead, the Court held that a relator must have direct and independent knowledge of <i>the specific misconduct for which liability is actually imposed.</i>
Backdating Investigations
April 30, 2007
As federal investigators examine the stock option programs of more than 160 companies, innumerable other companies launch internal investigations. As top executives resign, shareholders file dizzying numbers of derivative class action suits. Finally, as the Securities Exchange Commission and Department of Justice bring enforcement actions and criminal charges, the media is vilifying the so-called stock option backdating scandal as the biggest example of corporate abuse since Enron. The option backdating media frenzy focuses upon investigations by federal prosecutors and other regulatory agencies into public companies that have employed stock option compensation plans for corporate executives and employees.
Backdated Options
April 30, 2007
On Feb. 8, 2007, the Internal Revenue Service ('IRS') made an usual offer to employers: on very short notice ' by Feb. 28, 2007, employers could inform the IRS of their intent to pay the back taxes and penalties owed by (non-insider) employees who exercised stock options with 'an exercise price of less than fair market value of the underlying stock on the date of grant in 2006.' Under this Program, companies with backdated options programs were 'allowed' to calculate and pay, by June 30, 2007, on behalf of their employees who exercised such options, a 20% penalty tax, and an additional 1% interest on underpayments, owed by such employees under ' 409A of the Internal Revenue Code ('IRC').
Broad View of Privilege in Second Circuit Ruling
April 30, 2007
It is no longer acceptable ' if it ever was ' for in-house counsel merely to provide reactive assessments of legal risk presented by business people. Today, in-house lawyers must provide proactive solutions to their clients' problems, including solutions that mix legal advice with business-oriented suggestions. Of course, the attorney-client privilege protects only legal advice, and thus presents, at times, a difficult question: when has an in-house counsel provided non-privileged business advice instead of protected legal advice? That line is not always easy to draw, but a recent Second Circuit decision provides some guidance.
Climate Change: Why It Matters for Your Business
April 30, 2007
Climate change? Sustainable development? Greenhouse gases? Global warming? Traditionally, these concepts conjured up tree hugger-led environmental activists' warnings of the Earth's doom resulting from industrial fallout and natural resource use and misuse. Today, these hotly debated, frequently misunderstood scientific theories more often are the subject of critical analysis in corporate boardrooms, among business management and between leading U.S. CEOs. Despite some conflicting reports on the true effects of greenhouse gas emissions and other industrial-related impacts, all agree that the Earth's climate is warmer and continues to heat up annually. No consensus exists as to what can or should be done, how it shall be accomplished or by whom.
Whistleblowing with a French Twist
April 30, 2007
A long accepted and familiar concept in Anglo-Saxon countries, whistleblowing, for cultural and historical reasons, has proven to be a rather unwelcome legal obligation. France's total opposition to whistleblowing has softened over time and has been accompanied by a greater understanding and appreciation of its implications. Nevertheless, strong pervasive principles of French law continue to govern this domain.
The Antitrust Division's Corporate Lenience Program
April 30, 2007
Antitrust practitioners and companies worried about antitrust prosecution are weighing the significance of <i>Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. United States</i>, 442 F.3d 177 (3d Cir. 2006), which held that the Department of Justice (DOJ) could still prosecute a company after it had been accepted into the Antitrust Division's Corporate Leniency Program. Under the Program, adopted in 1993, a company engaged in antitrust violations that qualifies for leniency will not be prosecuted, provided that it confesses its wrongdoing, agrees to cooperate in an investigation of co-conspirators, and makes restitution to victims of its illegal conduct. The Program offers protection from both criminal prosecution and treble damages in subsequent civil antitrust suits.
Customer Identification Programs
April 30, 2007
Section 326 of the USA PATRIOT Act requires financial institutions to implement a written Customer Identification Program (CIP) that is appropriate for the size and type of business and that includes minimum requirements. The CIP is intended to enable the institution to form a reasonable belief that it knows the true identify of each customer. The CIP must include account opening procedures that specify the identifying information to be obtained from each customer. It must also include reasonable and practical risk based procedures for verifying each customer's identity.
