Close X
Attorney Spotlight

What colorful method does Claire Miley use to keep up with the latest healthcare regulations as they relate to proposed transactions? Find out more>

Search

Close X

Experience

Search our Experience

Experience Spotlight

On December 1, 2016, Parker Hannifin Corporation and CLARCOR Inc. announced that the companies have entered into a definitive agreement under which Parker will acquire CLARCOR for approximately $4.3 billion in cash, including the assumption of net debt. The transaction has been unanimously approved by the board of directors of each company. Upon closing of the transaction, expected to be completed by or during the first quarter of Parker’s fiscal year 2018, CLARCOR will be combined with Parker’s Filtration Group to form a leading and diverse global filtration business. Bass, Berry & Sims has served CLARCOR as primary corporate and securities counsel for 10 years and served as lead counsel on this transaction. Read more here.

CLARCOR
Close X

Thought Leadership

Enter your search terms in the relevant box(es) below to search for specific Thought Leadership.
To see a recent listing of Thought Leadership, click the blue Search button below.

Thought Leadership Spotlight

Securities Law Exchange BlogSecurities Law Exchange blog offers insight on the latest legal and regulatory developments affecting publicly traded companies. It focuses on a wide variety of topics including regulation and reporting updates, public company advisory topics, IPO readiness and exchange updates including IPO announcements, M&A trends and deal news.

Read More >

DOJ Targets Corporate Executives

Publications

September 14, 2015

On September 9, 2015, U.S. Department of Justice ("DOJ" or the "Department"), Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates issued a memorandum to all U.S. Attorneys regarding individual accountability for corporate wrongdoing (the "Yates Memo").  A copy of the memo is available here.

The point of the Yates Memo is clear: while DOJ will continue to pursue companies for corporate wrongdoing, the Department will also simultaneously pursue charges against individual employees.  According to the Yates Memo, "[b]ecause a corporation only acts through individuals, investigating the conduct of individuals is the most efficient and effective way to determine the facts and extent of any corporate misconduct."

And the ultimate target of these efforts?  Corporate executives.  The DOJ understands that lower-level employees facing individual civil or criminal liability are likely to cooperate against their superiors, thereby facilitating DOJ's ability to obtain information necessary to prosecute individuals further up the corporate ladder.

The Yates Memo outlines six key principles intended to strengthen the DOJ's pursuit of individual corporate wrongdoing: 

  1. To be eligible for any cooperation credit in a criminal or civil matter, a corporation must identify all individuals involved in or responsible for the misconduct at issue, regardless of their position, status, or seniority, and provide the Department all facts relating to that misconduct.
  2. Criminal and civil corporate investigations should focus on individuals from the inception of the investigation.
  3. The Department’s criminal and civil attorneys handling corporate investigations should be in routine communication with one another.
  4. Absent extraordinary circumstances or approved Departmental policy, the Department will not release culpable individuals from civil or criminal liability when resolving a matter with a corporation.
  5. DOJ attorneys should not resolve matters with a corporation without a clear plan to resolve related individuals cases, and should memorialize any declinations as to individuals in such cases.
  6. Civil attorneys should consistently focus on individuals as well as the company and evaluate whether to bring suit against an individual based on considerations beyond that individual’s ability to pay (e.g., the seriousness of the conduct, past misconduct, whether it is actionable, the burden of proof, and federal resources and priorities). 

Regarding the first principle, importantly, companies are required only to cooperate "within the bounds of the law and legal privileges."  This means, among other things, that companies are not required to waive the attorney-client and work-product privileges; indeed, under current DOJ policy, DOJ attorneys cannot even ask a company to waive privilege in criminal investigations.

The fifth principle may represent a significant change in overall DOJ practice (although the principle doubtless was already being applied in many cases).  Among other things, this fifth principle may force prosecutors to bring more criminal cases against individuals than they otherwise would, resulting in an increase in both indictments and trials.

It remains to be seen the extent to which the Yates Memo represents a substantial policy change for DOJ as opposed to a confirmation of existing practices.  It also remains to be seen how meaningfully the memo will impact the Department's enforcement efforts going forward.

Our Compliance & Government Investigations team is already taking stock of the ramifications of the Yates Memo, including in informal discussions with DOJ officials.  It was a point of emphasis throughout our annual Compliance & Government Investigations seminar in Nashville on September 10. (We timed the seminar well!)

Please contact us at any time to discuss the Yates Memo and how it could affect you and your company.

Read more on www.bassberrygovcon.com.


Related Professionals

Related Services

Notice

Visiting, or interacting with, this website does not constitute an attorney-client relationship. Although we are always interested in hearing from visitors to our website, we cannot accept representation on a new matter from either existing clients or new clients until we know that we do not have a conflict of interest that would prevent us from doing so. Therefore, please do not send us any information about any new matter that may involve a potential legal representation until we have confirmed that a conflict of interest does not exist and we have expressly agreed in writing to the representation. Until there is such an agreement, we will not be deemed to have given you any advice, any information you send may not be deemed privileged and confidential, and we may be able to represent adverse parties.