2007 Issue 1 - New York City Bar Association
2007 Issue 1 - New York City Bar Association
2007 Issue 1 - New York City Bar Association
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
L A W Y E R ’ S R O L E I N C O R P O R A T E G O V E R N A N C E<br />
tigation in discussing the criteria that the Commission would consider in<br />
assessing a corporation’s cooperation:<br />
Did the company promptly make available to our staff the results<br />
of its review and provide sufficient documentation reflecting<br />
its response to the situation Did the company identify possible<br />
violative conduct and evidence with sufficient precision to facilitate<br />
prompt enforcement actions against those who violated<br />
the law Did the company produce a thorough and probing<br />
written report detailing the findings of its review Did the company<br />
voluntarily disclose information our staff did not directly<br />
request and otherwise might not have uncovered Did the company<br />
ask its employees to cooperate with our staff and make all<br />
reasonable efforts to secure such cooperation 41<br />
2. Evolution of Seaboard: Punishing Efforts that Impede Investigations<br />
As noted, the Seaboard Report exists as the Commission’s stated policy<br />
regarding cooperation. In the view of some practitioners, however, the<br />
SEC’s enforcement program has evolved to a point of appearing in some<br />
cases to affirmatively punish companies for inadequate cooperation.<br />
For example, in a May 2004 press release announcing its $25 million<br />
settlement with Lucent, the SEC underscored that its decision to sanction<br />
the company (in addition to the individual wrongdoers) was based on<br />
Lucent’s “lack of cooperation.” 42 Similarly, Banc of America agreed to a<br />
settled a cease-and-desist order that made findings of, among other things,<br />
inadequate responses to document requests that had the effect of impeding<br />
the SEC staff’s investigation and delaying their investigatory work. 43<br />
Furthermore, SEC officials have admonished companies that efforts<br />
to interfere with Staff investigations will be punished. Associate Director<br />
of Enforcement Paul Berger explained that “[c]ompanies whose actions<br />
delay, hinder[,] or undermine SEC investigations will not succeed. Stiff<br />
sanctions and exposure of their conduct will serve as a reminder to companies<br />
that only genuine cooperation serves the best interests of investors.”<br />
44 Likewise, then Enforcement Director Cutler commented, “Any ef-<br />
41. Id. at 3-4.<br />
42. SEC Press Release 2004-67, Lucent Settles SEC Enforcement Action Charging the Company<br />
with $1.1 Billion Accounting Fraud (hereinafter, “SEC Press Release 2004-67”), available at<br />
http://www.sec.gov/news/press/2004-67.htm.<br />
43. See In re Banc of America Securities LLC, SEC Rel. No. 34-49386, 82 SEC Docket 1264<br />
(Mar. 10, 2004).<br />
44. SEC Press Release 2004-67, n.42 above.<br />
T H E R E C O R D<br />
218