Government Investigations & White Collar Crime (J)



 

The Government Investigations & White Collar Crime Specialty Group has been activated in response to extensive interest exhibited by TAGLaw members, especially in the U.S. and particularly since the passage of the Sarbanes Oxley legislation (also known as SARBOX or SOX.)


Meet the Co-chairs - TAGLAW


Hines, Melanie Ann
Berger Singerman LLP
mhines@bergersingerman.com


Meet the Co-chairs - TIAG


Ray, Dan CPA/CFF, CFE
Hemming Morse, LLP
rayd@hemming.com


Government Investigations & White Collar Crime (J)


Ferdose al-Taie, Dallas-based senior counsel in Dykema’s Commercial Litigation group, authored the article “Anonymous Whistleblowers Make Millions for Reporting Their Own Companies to Federal Regulators,” for FOCUS, the quarterly newsletter of the Association of Corporate Counsel (ACC) South Central Texas Chapter.

In the article, al-Taie shines a light on the ins and outs of Dodd-Frank Whistleblower awards and who is eligible for consideration. Throughout the article, she defines key terminology and addresses man frequently asked questions about whistleblowers and companies.

Read the entire article.

 


In Lagos v. United States, 584 U.S. ___ (2018), the Supreme Court issued a unanimous ruling that limits the ability of corporate victims of fraud to seek reimbursement of legal fees for internal investigations. The case began when GE Capital discovered that Sergio Lagos falsified numerous invoices for his company, which he used as collateral to obtain tens of millions of dollars in loans from GE Capital. After Lagos was convicted of fraud, GE Capital sought reimbursement under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act of 1996 (the “MVRA”) for roughly $5 million in expenses, related to: (1) the company’s internal investigation of Lagos’ fraudulent conduct; and (2) the company’s participation in bankruptcy proceedings related to Lagos’ company.

Read more: U.S. Supreme Court Decides Fraud Perpetrator is Not Required to Reimburse Victim for Costs of...


“Put his own interests above those of the company”

“Buried his head in the sand”

“May not have undertaken their duties in a fit and proper manner”

 

…. just a few quotes taken from recent proceedings against company officers.

Of course, these may be great soundbites for an article of this kind, but not words any executive would wish to  hear, not least when applied to the exercise of his or her corporate and/or fiduciary duties owed to a company.

 

Whether concerning health and safety failings, corporate governance, regulatory matters or fraud, we at DQ Advocates are seeing a clear trend - an increasing emphasis being placed on company officers and their lack of action or wilful blindness when it comes to criminal prosecutions.

Read more: Company Officers Under Increasing Scrutiny…but help is at hand


The liability of legal entity for offences committed in their organizational context and for their benefit is a reality in a growing number of countries. In fact, most European states have internal regulations in this area that adapt the various existing EU Directives.

Read more: The International Obligation to Have a Compliance Program


Authors: Laurel Brandstetter and Danielle Morrison

On February 21, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Digital Realty Trust Inc. v. Somers that “Dodd-Frank’s anti-retaliation provision does not extend to an individual, like Somers, who has not reported a violation of the securities laws to the SEC.” The Justices unanimously agreed in the judgment of the Court, though a minority wrote concurring opinions to articulate different rationales. Although this decision narrows the definition of “whistleblower” and protects companies in certain respects, business leaders should now examine their internal compliance systems to ensure the new incentives for employees to report directly to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) does not have unintended consequences for addressing and resolving potential problems.

Read the entire article.