Effectively dealing with a crisis often requires disclosure to government authorities, shareholders, and other stakeholders, even when many facts remain unknown. Companies must toe a delicate line when assessing when, to whom, and how much to disclose, especially in the absence of complete information.
Continue Reading Disclosure and Notification Considerations When Managing a Crisis
Depending on the matter, data collection and management can be among the most daunting and logistically difficult tasks. Ensuring that the full relevant universe of data is being preserved and considered and that accurate recordkeeping is being performed is essential to managing large volumes of information and, in turn, facilitating fact-finding goals and risk assessment.
Continue Reading Dealing with an Investigation: Data Collection and Management
Last month, Representative Jim Himes (D-Conn) and his co-sponsors, Representatives Carolyn B. Maloney (D-NY) and Denny Heck (D-WA), introduced H.R. 2534: The Insider Trading Prohibition Act. Unlike its substantially similar predecessor, H.R. 1625, which was introduced by Representative Himes on March 25, 2015, H.R. 2534 has gained some momentum in the U.S. House of Representatives, having been unanimously approved by the Financial Services Committee in May 2019. Although the bill is only at the preliminary stage, if the proposal eventually proceeds further in the process of becoming law, it will represent a potentially significant shift in and clarification of U.S. insider trading laws.
Continue Reading H.R. 2534: Insider Trading Prohibition Act – Congress Considers Enacting Changes to Insider Trading Law Under Section 10(b)
The beginning stages of an investigation are often the most critical. At the outset of any investigation, information is often limited and events are unfolding quickly. As a result, it is important to develop a clear and adaptable plan that is appropriately scoped, identifies the right team and sets forth the steps that will be taken as part of the investigation. Having a written plan in place is crucial to making sure that all relevant stakeholders are on the same page about what activities the investigation will include. It also ensures that the investigation is managed effectively and is guided by a clear set of objectives.
Continue Reading Dealing with an Investigation: Planning Ahead
Choices made at the outset of a crisis can play a critical role in a company’s ability to maintain future privilege claims. Recent cases highlight the risks of:
1. Sharing privileged communications with third-party consultants;
2. Conducting witness interviews through non-lawyers; and
3. Discussing the crisis with a former employee.
Continue Reading Preserving Privilege in a Crisis
A company faced with a crisis needs to act quickly to assess and determine the scope of any potential liability in order to guide its first response and frame the forthcoming investigation. Issues overlooked in the early phases of an investigation could prove very costly down the road, limiting options or potentially subjecting a company to greater penalties.
Continue Reading Assessing Risks and Potential Liability in Responding to a Crisis
On May 2, 2019, FINRA proposed new rules to designate “high-risk” firms and strengthen its ability to impose additional obligations on those firms.[1]
FINRA expects that only a small number of large firms (500 or more registered representatives) would be affected by the proposed rules, and that only zero to two would have been impacted in any given year had the rules been effective from 2013-2018.[2]
Early signals from FINRA about this rulemaking generated concern that the standards would be overly subjective, leading to uncertainty in application. We believe, however, that the proposed rules on balance reflect a reasonable, and largely objective, approach given FINRA’s stated goal to “impose tailored obligations” on those firms that “present heightened risk of harm to investors.”[3]
Continue Reading FINRA Proposes Rules Targeting Firms With History of Misconduct
On May 2, 2019, the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control released “A Framework for OFAC Compliance Commitments”, providing general guidance on the elements OFAC considers to compose an effective sanctions compliance program.
Broadly, the framework endorses a risk-based approach to compliance (recognizing that no two compliance programs will
As discussed in our most recent blog post, on April 30, 2019, the Criminal Division of the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ” or “the Department”) announced updated guidance for the Criminal Division’s Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs (“the Guidance”). The Guidance is relevant to the exercise of prosecutorial discretion in conducting an investigation of a corporation, determining whether to bring charges, negotiating plea or other agreements, applying sentencing guidelines and appointing monitors.[1] The Guidance focuses on familiar factors: the adoption of a well-designed compliance program that addresses the greatest compliance risks to the company, the effective implementation of the company’s compliance policies and procedures, and the adequacy of the compliance program at the time of any misconduct and the response to that misconduct. The Guidance makes clear that there is no one-size-fits-all compliance program and that primary responsibility for the compliance program will lie with senior and middle management and those in control functions.
Continue Reading DOJ Guidance on Corporate Compliance Programs: A Checklist for Directors
On April 30, 2019, the Criminal Division of the U.S. Department of Justice announced updated guidance for the Criminal Division’s Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs (“the Guidance”) in charging and resolving criminal cases. This memorandum highlights key updates and discusses the themes present across versions of the Guidance. Overall, this newest version places greater emphasis