Corporate Governance in the Aggressive FCPA Enforcement Environment

Corporate Governance in the Aggressive FCPA Enforcement Environment

You may also like...

7 Responses

  1. Anonymous says:

    Recently asked by investigating counsel whether in-house had sufficiently explained to a GC of a sovereign whether said in-house had explained and tutored GC regarding the FCPA, in-house responded, I would expect as a minimum that a GC of a company with assets in excess of USD30 Billion would have some basic understanding of anti-bribery concepts and principles. Especially, given all the magic circles wine and dine the GC on a regular basis. Q: does excessive hospitality, gifts etc from Outside Counsel for the benefit of sovereign GC's and IC's fall fowl of the FCPA and UK acts?

  2. michael volkov says:

    Outside counsel may be in trouble on this issue. In face, major firms are now developing thier own FCPA and UK Bribery complaince programs. Assuming GC works at sovereign wealth funds, or some other sovereign, then he is a "foreign official" for purposes of the FCPA and modest entertainment expenses are okay but does not sound like that is what is going on. Feel free to write me here or at my email — mvolkov@mayerbrown.com

  3. Anonymous says:

    Is there any record-keeping of the number of in-house counsels that have disclosed under the Dodd Frank Act or similar Acts i.e. SOX, as a Whistleblower?

  4. michael volkov says:

    No I am not aware of any record-keeping, although I expect the number to increase with new Dodd-Frank rules. But certainly a large number of whistleblowers have been in-house atoorneys. In today's world, I would highly recommend that such a whistleblower retain counsel before doing anything. Dodd-Frank increased ability of whistleblowers to suw for retaliation.

  5. Anonymous says:

    The concerns with the DFA is how loud and long should you shout before resorting to reporting? Counsel representing corporations, typically milking the corp on investigative fees, portray the WB as an opportunist and failing to shout loud enough internally yet the WB has a broad duty to discharge beyond the corp. How far should outside counsel go in defending a corp before they themselves are complicit? The highly competitive market that firms work in today has seriously compromised their broader duties beyond the corporation.

  6. michael volkov says:

    I think there is a lot of truth in your comment — counsel become complicit when they sacrifice thier judgment for milking fees and keeping thier mouths shut. I ahve found only a few counsel who are willing to stick to their principles and sometimes sacrifice larger fees; in the long run they are mnore successful

  7. Anonymous says:

    There needs to be a far bigger stick with respect to outside counsel, especially in the US, acting on behalf of super conglomerates, look at Weatherford and Fulbright! glaring deficiencies as they self-report every quarter yet still continue unabated. I guess you have to earn the fines to pay the fines. Was Billy, Bernard's get out of jail card????