Trends in Corporate Fraud Enforcement
October 03, 2005
For high-profile defendants, timing is everything. In 1989, former junk bond king Michael Milken was indicted on RICO violations, stock manipulation and insider trading. After Milken pleaded guilty to securities, mail and tax fraud and market manipulation, he was sentenced to 10 years in prison, with anticipated actual service of 40 months. Due to cooperation and good behavior, Milken emerged from prison after serving less than 2 years, with a personal fortune in place. He has remained a power broker in financial and charitable circles since his release. In 2005, former WorldCom, Inc. CEO Bernard Ebbers was indicted for conspiracy, securities fraud and filing false statements with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) after WorldCom announced that it had overstated earnings. After a New York jury found Ebbers guilty, Judge Barbara Jones sentenced 63-year-old- Ebbers -- a first-time violator -- to 25 years in prison, of which he must serve at least 21.
New Agreements with Europe
October 03, 2005
Conscientious corporate counsel and other careful practitioners soon should familiarize themselves with yet another prosecutorial and investigative weapon devised and implemented as a result of the terrorist attacks of 9/11. Prompted by an idea to promote cooperation between the European Union (EU) and the United States in fighting terrorism, the EU-U.S. Agreements on Extradition and Mutual Legal Assistance ("the Agreements"), once in effect, will provide new and powerful weapons for police and prosecutors on both sides of the pond. While the Agreements were created for a noble cause, their reach and grasp beyond terrorist activity is potentially troubling.
The KPMG Tax Shelter Prosecutions
October 03, 2005
On Aug. 29, 2005, the Department of Justice, the IRS and KPMG LLP (KPMG) announced that an agreement had been reached with the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York resolving the Grand Jury investigation into tax shelters designed, developed and sold by KPMG from 1996 to 2002 and related conduct. The settlement also resolved the IRS's examination of these activities. KPMG and the government entered into a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA), pursuant to which KPMG acknowledged responsibility for engaging in a massive tax fraud conspiracy that generated at least $11 billion in fraudulent tax losses, which cost the government at least $2.5 billion in evaded taxes.
When Bankruptcy Goes Public
October 03, 2005
Bankruptcy filings make headlines, regardless of whether the debtor is a large public company, a small private business, a national icon or a local not-for-profit. And media coverage -- and the public and political scrutiny it invites - can influence, for better or worse, the course of the case. It can even affect the very future of the organization. As the legal, operational and financial strategies associated with the bankruptcy process are put in place, communications must be an integral component.
Third Circuit Cuts Substantive Consolidation Risk
October 03, 2005
Lenders won a victory on Aug. 15 when the Third Circuit limited the equitable remedy of substantive consolidation in the Owens Corning reorganization case. <i>In re Owens Corning</i>, ____ F.3d ___, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 17150*1 (3d Cir. 2005), amended by 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 18043 (3d Cir. Aug. 23, 2005); further amended Sept. 2, 2005, <i>petitions for reh'g en banc filed</i> Aug. 29, 2005. Reversing the district court, the court held that "affiliated [debtor and non-debtor] entities" could not be "substantively" consolidated on the facts of the case before it. According to the court, the debtor and its allies sought substantive consolidation, a "last-resort remedy," in order to "deprive one group of creditors [ie, the unsecured lenders] of their rights while providing a windfall to other creditors." Id. at *5-*6. The future claimants' representative and a creditors' committee filed petitions for rehearing <i>en banc</i> on Aug. 29. Answers to those petitions were due to be filed by Sept. 12.
Debtor-in-Possession Financing
October 03, 2005
There has been much discussion among bankruptcy practitioners and scholars as to whether the courts have abdicated their responsibility to enforce the Bankruptcy Code and whether debtors and creditors committees are too easily pressured by lenders such that control of bankruptcy cases has been effectively ceded to secured creditors. One of the areas where many would say this is most prevalent is with post-petition lending.
