Close X
Attorney Spotlight

Find out which two countries Cheryl Palmeri gets the most questions about related to International Trade in today's market? Find out more>


Close X


Search our Experience

Experience Spotlight

In June 2016, AmSurg Corp. and Envision Healthcare Holdings, Inc. (Envision) announced they have signed a definitive merger agreement pursuant to which the companies will combine in an all-stock transaction. Upon completion of the merger, which is expected to be tax-free to the shareholders of both organizations, the combined company will be named Envision Healthcare Corporation and co-headquartered in Nashville, Tennessee and Greenwood Village, Colorado. The company's common stock is expected to trade on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol: EVHC. Bass, Berry & Sims served as lead counsel on the transaction, led by Jim Jenkins. Read more.

AmSurg logo

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

Inside the FCA blogInside the FCA blog features ongoing updates related to the False Claims Act (FCA), including insight on the latest legal decisions, regulatory developments and FCA settlements. The blog provides timely updates for corporate boards, directors, compliance managers, general counsel and other parties interested in the organizational impact and legal developments stemming from issues potentially giving rise to FCA liability.

Read More >

DOJ Targets Corporate Executives


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.


Related Professionals

Related Services


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.