2007 Issue 1 - New York City Bar Association

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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 tigation in discussing the criteria that the Commission would consider in assessing a corporation’s cooperation: Did the company promptly make available to our staff the results of its review and provide sufficient documentation reflecting its response to the situation Did the company identify possible violative conduct and evidence with sufficient precision to facilitate prompt enforcement actions against those who violated the law Did the company produce a thorough and probing written report detailing the findings of its review Did the company voluntarily disclose information our staff did not directly request and otherwise might not have uncovered Did the company ask its employees to cooperate with our staff and make all reasonable efforts to secure such cooperation 41 2. Evolution of Seaboard: Punishing Efforts that Impede Investigations As noted, the Seaboard Report exists as the Commission’s stated policy regarding cooperation. In the view of some practitioners, however, the SEC’s enforcement program has evolved to a point of appearing in some cases to affirmatively punish companies for inadequate cooperation. For example, in a May 2004 press release announcing its $25 million settlement with Lucent, the SEC underscored that its decision to sanction the company (in addition to the individual wrongdoers) was based on Lucent’s “lack of cooperation.” 42 Similarly, Banc of America agreed to a settled a cease-and-desist order that made findings of, among other things, inadequate responses to document requests that had the effect of impeding the SEC staff’s investigation and delaying their investigatory work. 43 Furthermore, SEC officials have admonished companies that efforts to interfere with Staff investigations will be punished. Associate Director of Enforcement Paul Berger explained that “[c]ompanies whose actions delay, hinder[,] or undermine SEC investigations will not succeed. Stiff sanctions and exposure of their conduct will serve as a reminder to companies that only genuine cooperation serves the best interests of investors.” 44 Likewise, then Enforcement Director Cutler commented, “Any ef- 41. Id. at 3-4. 42. SEC Press Release 2004-67, Lucent Settles SEC Enforcement Action Charging the Company with $1.1 Billion Accounting Fraud (hereinafter, “SEC Press Release 2004-67”), available at http://www.sec.gov/news/press/2004-67.htm. 43. See In re Banc of America Securities LLC, SEC Rel. No. 34-49386, 82 SEC Docket 1264 (Mar. 10, 2004). 44. SEC Press Release 2004-67, n.42 above. T H E R E C O R D 218
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 fort to impede an SEC investigation may itself become the subject of an enforcement proceeding.” 45 And, on multiple occasions, Cutler stressed that the “integrity of the investigative process” is sacred and a complementary goal to cooperation. 46 Former SEC General Counsel Prezioso has also warned that independent investigations “are worse than useless if conducted ineffectively.” 47 3. Sanctions Coupled with this evolving expectation of cooperation is the SEC’s escalation of the level of monetary penalties. In an April 2004 speech, Cutler explained that the SEC’s approach to fines had changed: “We’re clearly in the midst of an evolution, if not a revolution in thinking. In a decade, we’ve gone from a regime in which monetary penalties were imposed only rarely to one in which large penalties seem to be part of virtually all significant settlements.” 48 He also noted that the SEC now “start[s] with the presumption that any serious violation of the federal securities laws should be penalized with a monetary violation.” 49 While sanctions of more than $10 million were considered large only a few years ago, hundred-million-dollar penalties are now not uncommon. Thus, the incentives to cooperate, and the costs of not cooperating have increased dramatically. On January 4, 2006, acting unanimously, the SEC issued a Statement Concerning Financial Penalties, setting forth the factors it will consider in deciding whether and how to impose penalties in enforcement actions against corporations. 50 The Statement identifies two principal considerations that will guide the SEC’s determination whether a corporate penalty is appropriate: (1) [t]he presence or absence of a direct benefit to the corporation as a result of the violation, and (2) the degree to which the penalty will recompense or further harm the injured shareholders. 45. Kathleen Day, SEC Gets Tough on Hindering Investigations, Wash. Post, Mar. 19, 2004, at E1 (quoting Cutler). 46. Cutler, UCLA Speech, p. 49 in Report above; see also Cutler, Remarks Before D.C. <strong>Bar</strong>, n.177 in Report above. 47. Prezioso, Vanderbilt Remarks, n.176 in Report above. 48. Stephen M. Cutler, Speech at 24th Annual Ray Garrett Jr. Corporate & Securities Law Institute (Apr. 29, 2004), available at http://www.sec.gov/news/speech/spch042904smc.htm. 49. Id. (emphasis added). 50. SEC Press Release No. 2006-4, Statement of the Securities and Exchange Commission Concerning Financial Penalties, available at http://www.sec.gov/news/press/2006-4.htm. 2 0 0 7 V O L. 6 2 , N O. 1 219
Page 1 and 2:
THE RECORD OF THE ASSOCIATION OF TH
Page 3 and 4:
Of Note THE NEW YORK CITY BAR PRESE
Page 5 and 6:
O F N O T E cial Department, were p
Page 7 and 8:
R E C E N T C O M M I T T E E R E P
Page 9 and 10:
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
P R E V E N T I O N A N D P R O S E
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
P A U L R. M C D A N I E L devoted
Page 73 and 74:
P A U L R. M C D A N I E L The Repo
Page 75 and 76:
P A U L R. M C D A N I E L 2. It wo
Page 77 and 78:
P A U L R. M C D A N I E L Territor
Page 79 and 80:
P A U L R. M C D A N I E L the U.S.
Page 81 and 82:
P A U L R. M C D A N I E L An exemp
Page 83 and 84:
P A U L R. M C D A N I E L Conclusi
Page 85 and 86:
P A U L R. M C D A N I E L do busin
Page 87 and 88:
P A U L R. M C D A N I E L mestic i
Page 89 and 90:
Recommendations on the Selection of
Page 91 and 92:
Recommendations on the Selection of
Page 93 and 94:
J U D I C I A L S E L E C T I O N S
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
W E B S I T E A C C E S S I B I L I
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Formal Opinion 2006-3 Outsourcing L
Page 139 and 140:
F O R M A L O P I N I O N 2 0 0 6 -
Page 141 and 142:
F O R M A L O P I N I O N 2 0 0 6 -
Page 143 and 144:
F O R M A L O P I N I O N 2 0 0 6 -
Page 145 and 146:
F O R M A L O P I N I O N 2 0 0 6 -
Page 147 and 148:
Formal Opinion 2007-1 Applicability
Page 149 and 150:
F O R M A L O P I N I O N 2 0 0 7 -
Page 151 and 152:
F O R M A L O P I N I O N 2 0 0 7 -
Page 153 and 154:
F O R M A L O P I N I O N 2 0 0 7 -
Page 155 and 156:
Formal Opinion 2007-2 Secondment of
Page 157 and 158:
F O R M A L O P I N I O N 2 0 0 7 -
Page 159 and 160:
F O R M A L O P I N I O N 2 0 0 7 -
Page 161 and 162:
F O R M A L O P I N I O N 2 0 0 7 -
Page 163 and 164:
F O R M A L O P I N I O N 2 0 0 7 -
Page 165 and 166:
Report of the Task Force on the Law
Page 167 and 168: L A W Y E R ’ S R O L E I N C O R
Page 217: L A W Y E R ’ S R O L E I N C O R
Page 225: L A W Y E R ’ S R O L E I N C O R
show all

2007 Issue 1 - New York City Bar Association

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?