Corporate Accountability

Corporate governance reporting is a framework that gives stakeholders insight into a company’s ESG practices, allowing them to better understand the demographic makeup of its corporate board and overall workforce.

Employers are leveraging ESG to address various employees’ and shareholders’ concerns, including appropriate workplace safety controls that respond to employee input while maintaining compliance with state and federal standards.

In a $35 million settlement that emphasizes the “S” for social in Environmental, Social and Corporate Governance (ESG) issues in public filings, publicly traded video game developer Activision Blizzard, Inc. has agreed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to pay to resolve the company’s alleged failure to maintain adequate disclosure controls and procedures that would have allowed it to evaluate properly the adequacy of its human capital disclosures.

It is a new year and that means a fresh round of compliance reporting obligations for many companies. Here’s what lies ahead for 2022.

When it comes to consolidations and restructurings, in-house counsel and the corporate law firms that support them have competing priorities to further a company’s business objectives and mitigate legal risk. Labor and employment considerations are equally critical to a successful transaction.

Compliance or internal audit departments frequently carry out audits intended to assure that business partners in an organization, such as human resources or legal departments, have in place policies and procedures that are effective for maintaining corporate compliance and consistent with the myriad laws with which the organization must

Ken Najder, a partner in the Corporate Practice Group in the New Orleans office, authored the Private Company Director article “The Role of Minutes in Protecting Companies and Their Directors” discussing the benefits of well-prepared minutes and how companies and directors can help shield organizations from a host of pitfalls. Ken explains the amount of detail that should be included in minutes and how to handle privileged communications at board meetings.

The need for an effective compliance program to assist companies in preventing, detecting and, if necessary, promptly correcting issues before they become problems is nothing new. However, there is an increased focus by the government designed to induce employees to report suspected unlawful conduct by their employers to regulatory agencies. While this focus may benefit consumers and investors, it also raises the real possibility a company will first learn about an issue after an audit or enforcement action has already been commenced, and control of the situation is largely out of the company’s hands. This new era of external enforcement means that companies must place an even greater emphasis on their internal compliance programs. But where to start?

The following scenario is more common—and more troubling—than ever before. A high-ranking employee who has signed an agreement to preserve the confidentiality of business plans, financial information, and trade secrets stealthily collects confidential information belonging to the employer.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions has announced a new Department of Justice policy regarding the federal adoption of assets seized by state or local law enforcement under state law. The new policy, issued on July 19, 2017, is intended to strengthen and streamline the civil asset forfeiture program allowing a more aggressive pursuit of asset forfeiture cases and the increased sharing of proceeds of those seizures with local law enforcement.

During his campaign, President Donald Trump raised uncertainty with statements that he disapproved of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. Since then, however, the Department of Justice has emphasized its continued enforcement efforts for FCPA violations.

The Association of Corporate Counsel (ACC), which represents over 42,000 in-house counsel across 85 countries, recently released its ACC Chief Legal Officers (CLO) 2017 Survey which found that two-thirds of in-house legal leaders ranked data protection and information privacy as ‘very’ or ‘extremely’ important.

The Mandatory Victims Restitution Act of 1996 provides that defendants convicted of crimes committed by “fraud or deceit” must compensate victims for the full amount of their losses. A question that courts often face is whether the government and victim have provided sufficient evidence of their actual losses to obtain restitution under the MVRA. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, in Atlanta, has provided new guidance in United States v. Stein, No. 14-1521 (11th Cir. Jan. 18, 2017).

On April 5, 2016, the Department of Justice had set forth a Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”) Enforcement Plan and Guidance on enforcement, announcing an FCPA enforcement pilot program to promote greater accountability for individuals and companies that engage in corporate crime by motivating companies to voluntarily self-disclose FCPA-related misconduct, fully cooperate with the DOJ, and, where appropriate, remediate flaws in their controls and compliance programs.

We are seeing a growing number of False Claims Act (“FCA”), 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729 – 3733 cases where defendants test the sufficiency of relators’ pleadings, which is the heightened pleading standard under Rule 9(b). Rule 9(b) acts as a gatekeeping function by requiring that “in alleging fraud” a “party must state with particularity the circumstances constituting fraud.” In general terms, under Rule 9(b), courts require Relators to plead with particularity the “who, what, when, where and how” of the supposed fraudulent activity. See Kanter v. Barella, 489 F.3d 170, 175 (3d Cir. 2007). However, the question of what constitutes such “particularity” remains an open question, as courts continue to grapple over whether “particularity” requires a relator to identify specific false claims that were submitted for payment by a federal health care program.