Top Menu

Recent Disclosures Raise Many Questions

Deere & Co., Goldman, Pfizer, News Corp, Parametric Technology, Bruker, Diebold, Watts Water Technologies, 3M Corp. The flurry of public company disclosures of FCPA inquiries (some new, some merely updates) in recent days raise many questions.

Has the increase in FCPA enforcement done anything to deter future FCPA violations?

Why in this era of increased FCPA compliance does there seem to be more, not less, FCPA inquiries?  Does effective compliance reduce FCPA scrutiny or does effective compliance uncover more FCPA issues?  If the latter, does that argue in favor of a compliance defense?

If every company hired FCPA counsel to do a thorough review of its world-wide operations would – given the enforcement agencies theories of interpretation – 50% of companies find technical FCPA violations?  75%?  95%?  If the answer is any one of these numbers is that evidence of how corrupt business has become or is that evidence of how unhinged FCPA enforcement theories have become?

Other than plaintiffs’ firms representing certain investors in (some would say opportunistic) securities class actions or derivative claims, do investors even care about these disclosures?

What do these recent disclosures – involving companies in diverse industries operating in diverse countries – say about the FCPA itself?  Is it working?  Does it need reform?

Ponder these questions while browsing the latest disclosures.

Goldman

From the company’s August 9th 10-Q:

“[The company] and certain of its affiliates are subject to a number of investigations and reviews, certain of which are industry-wide, by various governmental and regulatory bodies and self-regulatory organizations relating to the sales, trading and clearance of corporate and government securities and other financial products, including compliance with the SEC’s short sale rule, algorithmic and quantitative trading, futures trading, securities lending practices, trading and clearance of credit derivative instruments, commodities trading, private placement practices, compliance with the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and the effectiveness of insider trading controls and internal information barriers.”

As noted in this prior post, Goldman’s FCPA scrutiny relates to its relationship with Libya’s sovereign wealth fund.

Pfizer

The company stated as follows in its August 11th 1o-Q:

“The Company has voluntarily provided the DOJ and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) with information concerning potentially improper payments made by Pfizer and by Wyeth in connection with certain sales activities outside the U.S. We are in discussions with the DOJ and SEC regarding a resolution of these matters. In addition, certain potentially improper payments and other matters are the subject of investigations by government authorities in certain foreign countries, including a civil and criminal investigation in Germany with respect to certain tax matters relating to a wholly owned subsidiary of Pfizer.”

News Corp.

News Corp.’s  FCPA exposure has been detailed in several prior posts (see here for instance) and in the company’s August 10th  8-K it stated as follows.

“In July 2011, the Company announced that it would close its publication, News of the World, after allegations of phone hacking and payments to police. As a result of these allegations, the Company is subject to several ongoing investigations by U.K. and U.S. regulators and governmental authorities, including investigations into whether similar conduct may have occurred at the Company’s subsidiaries outside of the U.K. The Company is fully cooperating with these investigations. In addition, the Company has admitted liability in a number of civil cases related to the phone hacking allegations and has settled a number of cases. The Company has taken steps to solve the problems relating to News of the World including the creation and establishment of an independent Management & Standards Committee, which will have oversight of, and take responsibility for, all matters in relation to the News of the World phone hacking case, police payments and all other connected issues at News International Group Limited (“News International”), including as they may relate to other News International publications.”

Parametric Technology Corp.

In a new disclosure, the company stated as follows in its August 10th 10-Q:

“In the third quarter of 2011, we identified certain payments by certain business partners in China that raised questions of compliance with laws, including the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, and/or compliance with our business policies. We are conducting an internal investigation and have voluntarily disclosed this matter to the United States Department of Justice and the Securities and Exchange Commission. We are unable to estimate the potential penalties and/or sanctions, if any, that might be assessed in connection with this matter. If we determine that the replacement of certain employees and/or business partners is necessary, it could have an impact on our level of sales in China until such replacements are in place and productive. Revenue from China has historically represented 6% to 7% of our total revenue.”

Bruker Corp.

In a new disclosure, the company stated as follows in its August 9th 10-Q:

“The Company has received certain anonymous communications alleging improper conduct in connection with the China operations of its Bruker Optics subsidiary. In response, the Audit Committee of the Company’s Board of Directors initiated an investigation of those allegations, with the assistance of independent outside counsel and an independent forensic consulting firm. The investigation is ongoing and includes a review of compliance by Bruker Optics and its employees in China with the requirements of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”) and other applicable laws and regulations. To date, the investigation has found evidence indicating that payments were made that improperly benefit employees or agents of government-owned enterprises in China. The Company voluntarily contacted the United States Securities and Exchange Commission and the United States Department of Justice to advise both agencies that an internal investigation is underway. It is the intent of the Audit Committee and the Company to cooperate with both agencies in connection with any investigation that may be conducted in this matter. In 2010, the China operations of Bruker Optics accounted for less than 2.5 percent of the Company’s consolidated net sales and less than 1.0 percent of its consolidated total assets. The internal investigation being conducted by the Audit Committee is ongoing and no conclusions can be drawn at this time as to its outcome; however, the FCPA and related statutes and regulations do provide for potential monetary penalties as well as criminal and civil sanctions in connection with FCPA violations. It is possible that monetary penalties and other sanctions could be assessed by the Federal government in connection with this matter. The nature and amount of any monetary penalty or other sanctions cannot reasonably be estimated. We have not recorded any provision for monetary penalties related to criminal and civil sanctions at this time.”

Diebold Inc.

In its August 8th 10-Q the company stated as follows.

“The Company’s global Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) review remains on schedule with no material developments during the three months ended June 30, 2011:  During the second quarter of 2010, while conducting due diligence in connection with a potential acquisition in Russia, the Company identified certain transactions and payments by its subsidiary in Russia (primarily during 2005 to 2008) that potentially implicate the FCPA, particularly the books and records provisions of the FCPA. As a result, the Company is conducting an internal review and collecting information related to its global FCPA compliance. In the fourth quarter of 2010, the Company identified certain transactions within its Asia Pacific operation over the past several years which may also potentially implicate the FCPA. The Company’s current assessment indicates that the transactions and payments in question to date do not materially impact or alter the Company’s consolidated financial statements in any year or in the aggregate. The Company’s internal review is ongoing, and accordingly, there can be no assurance that this review will not find evidence of additional transactions that potentially implicate the FCPA. The Company has voluntarily self-reported its findings to the SEC and the DOJ and is cooperating with these agencies in their review. The Company was previously informed that the SEC’s inquiry has been converted to a formal, non-public investigation. The Company also received a subpoena for documents from the SEC and a voluntary request for documents from the DOJ in connection with the investigation. The Company expects to complete its internal review of these matters by the end of 2011. Once the Company completes its internal review, it will begin discussions with the SEC and the DOJ to resolve this matter. At this time, the Company cannot predict the results of the government investigations and therefore cannot estimate the potential loss or range of loss it may incur with respect to these investigations or their potential impact on the consolidated financial statements. Future resolution of these matters with the DOJ and SEC could result in a material impact to the Company’s consolidated financial statements.”

Watts Water Technologies Inc.

In an August 3rd 8-K filing, the company provided this update:

“In the second quarter of 2011, the Company recorded income of $0.05 per share in discontinued operations related to a reserve adjustment for the previously disclosed FCPA investigation. The adjustment reflects management’s best estimate of a possible charge in connection with this matter based on ongoing discussions with SEC staff. There is no definitive agreement for resolution of this matter at this time.”

3M Company

In an August 4th 10-Q filing, the company provided this update:

“On November 12, 2009, the Company contacted the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to voluntarily disclose that the Company was conducting an internal investigation as a result of reports it received about its subsidiary in Turkey, alleging bid rigging and bribery and other inappropriate conduct in connection with the supply of certain reflective and other materials and related services to Turkish government entities. The Company also contacted certain affected government agencies in Turkey. The Company retained outside counsel to conduct an assessment of its policies, practices, and controls and to evaluate its overall compliance with the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, including an ongoing review of our practices in certain other countries and acquired entities. The Company continues to cooperate with the DOJ and SEC and government agencies in Turkey in the Company’s ongoing investigation of this matter. The Company cannot predict at this time the outcome of its investigation or what regulatory actions may be taken or what other consequences may result.”

Deere & Co.

In addition to the above disclosures, the Wall Street Journal Corruption Currents, among others, reported this week that Deere & Co.  “received an inquiry from regulators last month regarding payments made in Russia and nearby countries.”  In a statement, Deere stated as follows.  “On July 25, 2011, Deere received a request from the SEC that it voluntarily produce documents relating to Deere’s activities, and those of third parties, in certain foreign countries. Deere is cooperating with the SEC’s requests.”

The U.K. Bribery Act Goes Live

At the time of this post, the U.K. Bribery Act has been live for about ten hours, yet there has not been an enforcement action. Given that the Act is not retrospective and applies only to bribes paid after July 1st, this is hardly surprising, but I hope you appreciate the Friday humor.

U.K. corporates and others subject to the Bribery Act are doing business around the world, including in high-risk jurisdictions, and a healthy dose of corporate hospitality is no doubt occurring at Wimbledon. In other words, the world has not changed.

Today, of course, is the day the U.K. Bribery Act finally goes live.

As explained is this U.K. Ministry of Justice circular, “the Bribery Act replaces the offences at common law and under the Public Bodies Corrupt Practices Act 1889, the Prevention of Corruption Act 1906 and the Prevention of Corruption Act 1916 (known collectively as the Prevention of Corruption Acts 1889 to 1916) with a new consolidated scheme of bribery offences.”

The FCPA-like provision of the Bribery Act is Section 6 described in the circular as follows. “Section 6 is designed to deal with the corruption of decision making in publicly funded business transactions through the personal enrichment of foreign public officials by those seeking business opportunities. The offence is committed where a person offers, promises or gives a financial or other advantage to a foreign public official with the intention of influencing the official in the performance of his or her official functions. There must also be an intention to obtain or retain business or a business advantage on the part of the perpetrator. However, the offence is not committed where the official is permitted or required by the applicable written law to be influenced by the advantage.”

As to corporate liability, the circular states as follows. “The Bribery Act includes a new form of corporate criminal liability where there is a failure to prevent bribery perpetrated on behalf of a “relevant commercial organisation” (Section 7). This new corporate liability for bribery […] does not in any way change the existing common law principle governing the liability of corporate bodies for criminal offences that require the prosecution to prove a fault element or ‘mens rea’ in addition to a conduct element. This common law principle, sometimes referred to as the “identification principle”, will therefore continue to operate so that where there is evidence to prove that a person who is properly regarded as representing the “directing mind” of the body in question possessed the necessary fault element required for the offence charged the corporate body may be proceeded against.”

As to the Section 7 offense, the circular states as follows. “The offence at section 7 of the Act creates a new form of corporate criminal liability. The offence applies only to a “relevant commercial organisation” as defined at section 7(5) and focuses on a failure by such an organisation to prevent a person “associated with” it from committing a section 1 or 6 bribery offence in order to obtain or retain business or an advantage in the conduct of business for that organisation. It creates direct rather than vicarious liability and its commission does not amount to the commission of a substantive bribery offence under section 1 or 6. A commercial organisation will have a full defence if it can show that despite a particular case of bribery it nevertheless had adequate procedures in place designed to prevent persons associated with it from bribing.”

As Michael Volkov (here) nicely stated – “The longest pre-game show in history is drawing to a close. The new world will shortly be upon us. Will the UK Bribery Act be a game-changer or will it fizzle out like Y2K? Everyone has their predictions; everyone has their focus and emphasis.”

Here is my two cents.

As with any new law, there is likely to be a learning phase for both the enforcement agencies and those subject to the law. That was certainly the case in the U.S. in the years following passage of the FCPA in 1977. Thus, it very well may be the case that there are no enforcement actions for some time (recognizing that it often takes a few years from beginning of an inquiry to resolution of an action). Thus the greatest immediate impact of the Bribery Act is sure to be the compliance ethic it inspires. I expect that the enforcement actions that may develop over time to focus on egregious instances of corporate conduct on which no reasonable minds would disagree. I do not get the sense, based on public comments of the Ministry of Justice and the Serious Fraud Office, that the envelope will be pushed too far in the early years of the Bribery Act.

*****

See here for the text of Richard Alderman’s (Director of the U.K. Serious Fraud Office) recent speech on the Bribery Act.

In a signature departure from U.S. enforcement policy concerning merger and aquisition issues, Alderman stated as follows. “I know that there are many occasions when an acquiring company takes over a target company and discovers either before or after the event that there are serious problems about corrupt activities in the target company. My view is that when an ethical acquiring company identifies these issues, then it is in everyone’s interest that that acquiring company gets on and sorts out the problems that it has inherited. I have difficulty in seeing that any SFO investigation at the corporate level would be justified although I would have to consider carefully the position of any individuals.” (As highlighted in this recent post, several FCPA enforcement actions have been based on successor liability theories).

*****

In this speech, Alderman stated the following regarding the “foreign public official” term in the Bribery Act.

“Who then is a foreign public official? This is the subject of litigation at the moment in the US and I am following this with interest. The test I use is one that was set out by the OECD in the commentary on the OECD Convention. What we look at is whether or not the foreign State is in a position to influence the foreign company. We therefore look at the relationship between the company and the State to see whether effectively this commercial organisation is being run by the State. This can lead us into some tricky areas. We have received questions about banking officials in countries where the State has a very major interest in the Bank and exercises that interest very actively. Are those officials foreign public officials? Our view is that in those circumstances the individual is likely to be a foreign public official. On the other hand if the State has a major interest but does not control the operations of the Bank, then I think we could have a different situation.”

*****

Keeping with today’s U.K. theme, earlier this week Bloomberg reported (here) that the SFO is assisting the SEC “on inquiries involving financial institutions and whether bribes were paid in transactions with sovereign wealth funds.”

As previously reported by the Wall Street Journal (see here) the SEC is “examining whether Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and other financial firms might have violated bribery laws in dealings with Libya’s sovereign wealth fund.” The SFO’s inquiry appears to be related to HSBC Holdings Plc’s interactions with Libya’s sovereign wealth fund.

Other financial services firms that have reportedly received letters of inquiry from the SEC include Bank of America, Morgan Stanley, and Citigroup.

*****

A good holiday weekend to all.

Friday Roundup

Another FCPA hearing on Capital Hill next week, news regarding Goldmann Sachs, questioning the use of NPAs and DPAs, an informative read regarding India, and something for your “foreign official” file.

Its all here in the Friday roundup.

House Hearing

Next Tuesday, June 14th, the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security of the House Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing titled “Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.” According to this report by Christopher Matthews of Main Justice the hearing is expected to focus on the following issues: successor liability, a potential compliance defense, “foreign official,” and corporate mens rea issues.

The witness list for the hearing is as follows (see here).

Hon. Michael Mukasey (Former Attorney General, Partner, Debevoise & Plimpton LLP – see here); Mr. Greg Andres (Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division, U.S. Department of Justice); Mr. George Terwilliger (Partner, White & Case LLP – see here); and Ms. Shana-Tara Regon (Director, White Collar Crime Policy, National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers – see here).

Predictably, some are blasting the very existence of the hearing. For instance, Political Correction, a project of Media Matters Action Network (a self-described progressive research and information center dedicated to analyzing and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media), describes the hearing here as “Rep. Lamar Smith’s Fight to Make Bribery Easier For Big Business.”

The House hearing follows a November 30th Senate hearing titled “Examining Enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.” See here for a prior post.

This post, prior to the 2010 hearing provided some guiding words, and if those were not enough, how about this statement from William Brock, U.S. Trade Representative, on April 18, 1983 during a hearing before the House Subcommittee on International Economic Policy and Trade of the Committee on Foreign Affairs.

“Mr. Chairman, no one minimizes the complexity of the issue before you today. Just because the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act spotlights a sensitive subject, some people wish to turn a ‘blind eye’ to its shortcomings rather than risk being accused of being ‘soft on bribery.’ That is too easy a way out. Retreating from controversy will not cure the law’s deficiencies. Such inaction will no more eliminate the need for FCPA reforms today than it can eliminate the criticism of the Act brought over the past several years. After five and on half years experience with this law, after legitimate problems have been identified and examined, we have a responsibility to respond. Is there any U.S. law that ought to be above such review and clarification – especially one as complex as the FCPA.”

Well said.

Goldman Inquiry

Yesterday, the Wall Street Journal reported – “Eyes on Goldman-Libya Dealings” – that the SEC is “examining whether Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and other financial firms might have violated bribery laws in dealings with Libya’s sovereign wealth fund.” The inquiry appears to be focused on a “$50 million fee Goldman initially agreed to pay [but one that was never paid to] the Libyan sovereign-wealth fund as part of a proposal … to help the fund recoup losses.”

A Goldman spokesman is quoted as follows. “We are confident that nothing we did or proposed was or could have been a breach of any rule or regulation. We retained outside counsel, as is our normal practice for any transaction to ensure that we were compliant with all applicable rules.”

Can the FCPA be implicated by payments never made?

Yes. The anti-bribery provisions prohibit “an offer, payment, promise to pay, or authorization of payment …”.

What about payments to foreign governments?

No. The anti-bribery provisions only apply to offers, payments, promises of payment, or authorizations of payments to “foreign officials.”

However, according to the WSJ article the inquiry appears to focus on whether the contemplated payment would have been passed on to an outside adviser firm “run at the time by the son-in-law of the head of Libya’s state-owned oil company.”

For more on the Goldman inquiry, see here from Ashby Jones (WSJ Law Blog) and here from Samuel Rubenfeld (WSJ Corruption Currents).

NPAs / DPAs

Non-prosecution and deferred prosecution agreements ought to be abolished. I’ve argued here and in other places that these agreements have traded one negative externality of white collar prosecution (the much over-hyped Arthur Anderson effect) for a host of others, including the alarming lack of any meaningful judicial scrutiny to ensure that NPAs and DPAs are truly based on facts and appropriate legal theories to support the charges “alleged.”

Mark Mendelsohn, the former head of the DOJ’s FCPA unit during its era of resurgence, stated in a September 2010 interview with Corporate Crime Reporter, that a “danger” with NPAs and DPAs “is that it is tempting” for the DOJ “to seek to resolve cases through DPAs or NPAs that don‟t actually constitute violations of the law.”

Asked directly – if the DOJ “did not have the choice of deferred or non prosecution agreements, what would happen to the number of FCPA settlements every year,” Mendelsohn stated as follows: “if the Department only had the option of bringing a criminal case or declining to bring a case, you would certainly bring fewer cases.”

Add W. Neil Eggleston, a former DOJ enforcement attorney currently a partner at Debevoise (here), to the growing list of former DOJ enforcement attorneys critical of these alternative resolution vehicles.

In this recent interview with Corporate Crime Reporter, Eggleston stated as follows. “I worry that [NPAs and DPAs] will become a substitute for a prosecutor deciding – this is not an appropriate case to bring – there is no reason to subject this corporation to corporate criminal liability. In the old days, they would have dropped the case. Now, they have the back up of seeking a deferred or non prosecution agreement, when in fact the case should not have been pursued at all. That’s what I’m worried about – an easy out.”

Well said.

India

If India is a country of concern or focus of yours, you will want to check out the most recent quarterly newsletter of the India Committee of the ABA Section of International Law. (See here).

Guest editor James Parkinson of BuckleySandler (here) provides the following articles, among others, in the newsletter: one devoted to the FCPA risks of doing business in India; another devoted to India’s demand-side statute – the Prevention of Corruption Act; another focused on reducing corruption risks in India through compliance programs; and another calling for India to join the OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions.

“Foreign Official”

And finally, because your “foreign official” file would be incomplete without it, here is a transcript of the May 9th oral argument in the Carson “foreign official” challenge. See here and here for previous posts.

*****

A good weekend to all.

Libya

Two feature articles this week, one from the New York Times the other from Canada’s Globe and Mail, focus on business dealings in Libya.

The New York Times article (here) by Eric Lichtblau, David Rohde and James Risen begins by noting that “some companies, including several based in the United States, appeared willing to give in to” Libya’s demand for monetary contributions to help Libya pay $1.5 billion for its role in the downing of Pan Am Flight 103 – as a condition of continuing to do business in the country.

The article also notes that after the U.S. reopened trade with Libya in 2004, American and international oil companies, telecommunications firms and contractors “discovered that Colonel Qaddafi or his loyalists often sought to extract millions of dollars in “signing bonuses” and “consultancy contracts” — or insisted that the strongman’s sons get a piece of the action through shotgun partnerships.”

Among other examples cited, the articles notes that “in 2008, Occidental Petroleum, based in California, paid a $1 billion “signing bonus” to the Libyan government as part of a 30-year agreement.” According to the article, “Petro-Canada, a large Canadian oil company, made a similar $1 billion payment after Libyan officials granted it a 30-year oil exploration license.”

One strange aspect of the FCPA is that it does not prohibit payments to foreign governments, only foreign officials. See e.g., DOJ Opinion Procedure Release 09-01 (here) stating that the conduct at issue would “fall outside the scope of the FCPA” in that the things of value “will be provided to the foreign
government, as opposed to individual government officials …”.

The Globe and Mail article (here) by Nathan Vanderklippe begins as follows.

“Near the centre of Tripoli sits the bunker, residence and military command post of Moammar Gadhafi. It is hidden behind three concentric rings of defensive walls. It is a fortress that sprawls over six square kilometres. But for much of the past decade, those working hardest to penetrate it have not been citizens rising up against a despot. They have, instead, been wealthy Western companies, intent on wringing riches from the Libyan desert’s massive oil reserves. For some of them, gaining access to Col. Gadhafi – whether directly, or through one of his powerful sons, or through a shadowy network of well-connected “consultants” – was just one of the many challenges of operating in a country some remember as downright bizarre.”

Regime Change Due Diligence?

Today’s post is from a reader with government experience who wished to remain anonymous.

*****

“I have read with interest this blog’s prior post (here) relating to the recent political turmoil in Egypt, and the possible implications of those events from the standpoint of the FCPA and other anti-corruption laws and regulations around the world. Also of interest was this blog raising the question whether the next generation enforcement device by anti-corruption officials looking at these regime changes might include the “country sweep” as a corollary to the “industry sweep” that has been used in past corruption exercises. These considerations are brought further under the klieg light when considering the evolving state of affairs in the Middle East and the possible additional regime changes that may take place after certain leaders have been in power for decades and have amassed reported family fortunes that would make the most ardent of capitalists sit up and take notice.

Reading posts on this blog and others (see here for a similar recent post on the FCPA Blog), as well as observing general media reports on the amounts that these leaders have supposedly put in their bank accounts, makes one wonder of the level of criminality that must have occurred. It shouldn’t take one with an overly cynical view to surmise that we must be talking of thousands of crimes by hundreds or more actors.

Surely, there will be investigations galore by new regimes to try to discredit the vanquished and reclaim national funds. It will be easier to determine who were the beneficiaries or recipients of all the funds to the extent tracing is possible. But given the sums that are being bandied about, there will be a far larger number of sources from which such funds may have originated that ultimately found their way to the autocrats and their legion. And it will be interesting to see where the investigations and questioning leads in terms of where all that money has come from. One can only hope that people with important titles on their business cards sitting in governmental agencies around the world are also sitting up and paying attention and are planning to use those titles and the power that goes along with them to further the goals of the laws they have sworn to uphold. It goes far beyond simply freezing assets. It will be a massive undertaking. Where it leads could raise delicate issue for businesses. Perhaps also national security and statecraft.

All this also makes one test their empathy skills by playing the “What-Would-You-Do” game. That game goes something like this: imagine you were standing in the high priced wing-tips of a Chief Risk/Compliance Officer or a General Counsel of any public company that has been doing business in that part of the world. What should you be thinking just about now? Surely you have seen the news reports and heard the stories. Do you just shake your head on the speed with which change occurs? Or would you feel compelled (either because you believe it’s the right thing to do, or, more basically, because you would never want to be in a position of being criticized later for at least never having raised it) to walk down the hall to the CEO’s office or the board room for that matter, and say: “we really should be thinking about running an audit or review or bringing in people to run an audit of everything we’ve been doing in [Insert Country or Countries of Choice] just so we understand what we’ve got in terms of any issues. We should be refreshing and testing our protocols.” Board members should be thinking along these lines too. They should be asking these kinds of questions if their own management teams aren’t raising them. You can bet your shareholders’ bottom dollar that plaintiffs’ counsel are or will be thinking like this and pursuing claims, and D&O insurance providers will be concerned about it too. It may be a long way off, and telescoping is never easy, but it will be surprising if the fallout zone in the aftermath doesn’t include some of this laundry.”

Powered by WordPress. Designed by WooThemes