The Critical Compliance Question: What is the Employee’s Intent?

You may also like...

43 Responses

  1. Anonymous says:

    How far should in-house counsel go too to stop a corrupt act? Should they remain with the company or walk if the actions fail to cease after shouting as loud as possible? If they remain with the company, will they be viewed as complicit the longer they stay? Is Dodd Frank sufficient protection for whistleblowers? How is a whistleblower to be protected where a company engages outside counsel who staunchly oppose Dodd Franks? Should outside counsel act in the best interest of the client or the law?

  2. Anonymous says:

    How far should in-house counsel go too to stop a corrupt act? Should they remain with the company or walk if the actions fail to cease after shouting as loud as possible? If they remain with the company, will they be viewed as complicit the longer they stay? Is Dodd Frank sufficient protection for whistleblowers? How is a whistleblower to be protected where a company engages outside counsel who staunchly oppose Dodd Franks? Should outside counsel act in the best interest of the client or the law?

  3. Anonymous says:

    How far should in-house counsel go too to stop a corrupt act? Should they remain with the company or walk if the actions fail to cease after shouting as loud as possible? If they remain with the company, will they be viewed as complicit the longer they stay? Is Dodd Frank sufficient protection for whistleblowers? How is a whistleblower to be protected where a company engages outside counsel who staunchly oppose Dodd Franks? Should outside counsel act in the best interest of the client or the law?

  4. Anonymous says:

    How far should in-house counsel go too to stop a corrupt act? Should they remain with the company or walk if the actions fail to cease after shouting as loud as possible? If they remain with the company, will they be viewed as complicit the longer they stay? Is Dodd Frank sufficient protection for whistleblowers? How is a whistleblower to be protected where a company engages outside counsel who staunchly oppose Dodd Franks? Should outside counsel act in the best interest of the client or the law?

  5. michael volkov says:

    This is a very tricky issue. I have encountered situations like this and can be messy. In house counsel should paper as much as possible his/her belief as to illegal conduct and stepos he or she has taken. I would be concerned that some may try to pin blame on in house counsel (depending on role). If I were in house counsel, I would retain an attorney and review options. What is position of other managers? Board? Audit Committee head? Dodd-Frank whistleblower status is indeed protective bbut situation is complicated because of possible privilege claims. The circumstances here need to be carefully review by counsel for GC. Outside counsel's interest is to the company. If htey see a violaiton, they need to make it clear that it is a violaiton and everyone is at risk, including the individual Board members. The situation may be untenable and need to be fixed. You can write me more here or better email me at mvolkov@mayerbrown.com

  6. michael volkov says:

    This is a very tricky issue. I have encountered situations like this and can be messy. In house counsel should paper as much as possible his/her belief as to illegal conduct and stepos he or she has taken. I would be concerned that some may try to pin blame on in house counsel (depending on role). If I were in house counsel, I would retain an attorney and review options. What is position of other managers? Board? Audit Committee head? Dodd-Frank whistleblower status is indeed protective bbut situation is complicated because of possible privilege claims. The circumstances here need to be carefully review by counsel for GC. Outside counsel's interest is to the company. If htey see a violaiton, they need to make it clear that it is a violaiton and everyone is at risk, including the individual Board members. The situation may be untenable and need to be fixed. You can write me more here or better email me at mvolkov@mayerbrown.com

  7. michael volkov says:

    This is a very tricky issue. I have encountered situations like this and can be messy. In house counsel should paper as much as possible his/her belief as to illegal conduct and stepos he or she has taken. I would be concerned that some may try to pin blame on in house counsel (depending on role). If I were in house counsel, I would retain an attorney and review options. What is position of other managers? Board? Audit Committee head? Dodd-Frank whistleblower status is indeed protective bbut situation is complicated because of possible privilege claims. The circumstances here need to be carefully review by counsel for GC. Outside counsel's interest is to the company. If htey see a violaiton, they need to make it clear that it is a violaiton and everyone is at risk, including the individual Board members. The situation may be untenable and need to be fixed. You can write me more here or better email me at mvolkov@mayerbrown.com

  8. michael volkov says:

    This is a very tricky issue. I have encountered situations like this and can be messy. In house counsel should paper as much as possible his/her belief as to illegal conduct and stepos he or she has taken. I would be concerned that some may try to pin blame on in house counsel (depending on role). If I were in house counsel, I would retain an attorney and review options. What is position of other managers? Board? Audit Committee head? Dodd-Frank whistleblower status is indeed protective bbut situation is complicated because of possible privilege claims. The circumstances here need to be carefully review by counsel for GC. Outside counsel's interest is to the company. If htey see a violaiton, they need to make it clear that it is a violaiton and everyone is at risk, including the individual Board members. The situation may be untenable and need to be fixed. You can write me more here or better email me at mvolkov@mayerbrown.com

  9. Anonymous says:

    it is extremely messy when the GC and the board are complicit. In-house does have counsel and the options have been assessed. Sadly the corporation is lining up to move on in-house, at the same time the SEC has been alerted. The stress, anguish and isolation is far from enjoyable and undeserved.

  10. Anonymous says:

    it is extremely messy when the GC and the board are complicit. In-house does have counsel and the options have been assessed. Sadly the corporation is lining up to move on in-house, at the same time the SEC has been alerted. The stress, anguish and isolation is far from enjoyable and undeserved.

  11. Anonymous says:

    it is extremely messy when the GC and the board are complicit. In-house does have counsel and the options have been assessed. Sadly the corporation is lining up to move on in-house, at the same time the SEC has been alerted. The stress, anguish and isolation is far from enjoyable and undeserved.

  12. Anonymous says:

    it is extremely messy when the GC and the board are complicit. In-house does have counsel and the options have been assessed. Sadly the corporation is lining up to move on in-house, at the same time the SEC has been alerted. The stress, anguish and isolation is far from enjoyable and undeserved.

  13. Anonymous says:

    it is extremely messy when the GC and the board are complicit. In-house does have counsel and the options have been assessed. Sadly the corporation is lining up to move on in-house, at the same time the SEC has been alerted. The stress, anguish and isolation is far from enjoyable and undeserved.

  14. michael volkov says:

    Well, I am involved in a similiar situation (not representing the WB) but representing a new Board member who is concerned about an issue and now has to protect himself as everyone lines up against in-house counsel (who himself has a lawyer) It is getting messy.

  15. michael volkov says:

    Well, I am involved in a similiar situation (not representing the WB) but representing a new Board member who is concerned about an issue and now has to protect himself as everyone lines up against in-house counsel (who himself has a lawyer) It is getting messy.

  16. michael volkov says:

    Well, I am involved in a similiar situation (not representing the WB) but representing a new Board member who is concerned about an issue and now has to protect himself as everyone lines up against in-house counsel (who himself has a lawyer) It is getting messy.

  17. michael volkov says:

    Well, I am involved in a similiar situation (not representing the WB) but representing a new Board member who is concerned about an issue and now has to protect himself as everyone lines up against in-house counsel (who himself has a lawyer) It is getting messy.

  18. michael volkov says:

    Well, I am involved in a similiar situation (not representing the WB) but representing a new Board member who is concerned about an issue and now has to protect himself as everyone lines up against in-house counsel (who himself has a lawyer) It is getting messy.

  19. Anonymous says:

    As in-house who becomes aware, makes numerous documented attempts at alerting the company, GC, the Board and the Audit committee, only to suffer retaliation in numerous ways, having taken the ultimate stance by reporting to corrective their integrity and ethical position. The conflict of in-house is, notwithstanding privilege and confidentiality that may be claimed and exists between in-house and the corporation, in-house has an over-arching duty to the laws and courts they operate within. Even more complexed is where in-house is a foreign lawyer who must adhere to his home jurisdiction obligations in order to remain licensed as well as adhere to applicable laws in multiple jurisdictions. A foreign lawyer can be held accountable for violations under the FCPA, AML, foreign jurisdictions of an Asian Pacific parent or holding company, the jurisdiction of the Special Purpose Company, the jurisdiction of the country where the SPC operates i.e. Indonesia, Malaysia, Vietnam etc. There is no excuse for complicit behaviour, head in the sand mentality went out years ago. Life is even more complicated when in-house sits on numerous boards. Definite need for an attorney and strength.

  20. Anonymous says:

    As in-house who becomes aware, makes numerous documented attempts at alerting the company, GC, the Board and the Audit committee, only to suffer retaliation in numerous ways, having taken the ultimate stance by reporting to corrective their integrity and ethical position. The conflict of in-house is, notwithstanding privilege and confidentiality that may be claimed and exists between in-house and the corporation, in-house has an over-arching duty to the laws and courts they operate within. Even more complexed is where in-house is a foreign lawyer who must adhere to his home jurisdiction obligations in order to remain licensed as well as adhere to applicable laws in multiple jurisdictions. A foreign lawyer can be held accountable for violations under the FCPA, AML, foreign jurisdictions of an Asian Pacific parent or holding company, the jurisdiction of the Special Purpose Company, the jurisdiction of the country where the SPC operates i.e. Indonesia, Malaysia, Vietnam etc. There is no excuse for complicit behaviour, head in the sand mentality went out years ago. Life is even more complicated when in-house sits on numerous boards. Definite need for an attorney and strength.

  21. Anonymous says:

    As in-house who becomes aware, makes numerous documented attempts at alerting the company, GC, the Board and the Audit committee, only to suffer retaliation in numerous ways, having taken the ultimate stance by reporting to corrective their integrity and ethical position. The conflict of in-house is, notwithstanding privilege and confidentiality that may be claimed and exists between in-house and the corporation, in-house has an over-arching duty to the laws and courts they operate within. Even more complexed is where in-house is a foreign lawyer who must adhere to his home jurisdiction obligations in order to remain licensed as well as adhere to applicable laws in multiple jurisdictions. A foreign lawyer can be held accountable for violations under the FCPA, AML, foreign jurisdictions of an Asian Pacific parent or holding company, the jurisdiction of the Special Purpose Company, the jurisdiction of the country where the SPC operates i.e. Indonesia, Malaysia, Vietnam etc. There is no excuse for complicit behaviour, head in the sand mentality went out years ago. Life is even more complicated when in-house sits on numerous boards. Definite need for an attorney and strength.

  22. Anonymous says:

    As in-house who becomes aware, makes numerous documented attempts at alerting the company, GC, the Board and the Audit committee, only to suffer retaliation in numerous ways, having taken the ultimate stance by reporting to corrective their integrity and ethical position. The conflict of in-house is, notwithstanding privilege and confidentiality that may be claimed and exists between in-house and the corporation, in-house has an over-arching duty to the laws and courts they operate within. Even more complexed is where in-house is a foreign lawyer who must adhere to his home jurisdiction obligations in order to remain licensed as well as adhere to applicable laws in multiple jurisdictions. A foreign lawyer can be held accountable for violations under the FCPA, AML, foreign jurisdictions of an Asian Pacific parent or holding company, the jurisdiction of the Special Purpose Company, the jurisdiction of the country where the SPC operates i.e. Indonesia, Malaysia, Vietnam etc. There is no excuse for complicit behaviour, head in the sand mentality went out years ago. Life is even more complicated when in-house sits on numerous boards. Definite need for an attorney and strength.

  23. michael volkov says:

    You have definitely captured in one paragraph the difficulty of in-house positions in global companies. What makes it all the more scary is that DOJ is targeting gatekeepers (attorneys, accountants and others) for criminal prosecution (e.g. Glaxo case against Laura Stevens). Keep in mind that FCPA and other folks in DOJ want to do a wiretap case against a company like the recent insider trading case, only in the FCPA area. Good luck as you move forward. If there is anything I can do to help, let me know

  24. michael volkov says:

    You have definitely captured in one paragraph the difficulty of in-house positions in global companies. What makes it all the more scary is that DOJ is targeting gatekeepers (attorneys, accountants and others) for criminal prosecution (e.g. Glaxo case against Laura Stevens). Keep in mind that FCPA and other folks in DOJ want to do a wiretap case against a company like the recent insider trading case, only in the FCPA area. Good luck as you move forward. If there is anything I can do to help, let me know

  25. michael volkov says:

    You have definitely captured in one paragraph the difficulty of in-house positions in global companies. What makes it all the more scary is that DOJ is targeting gatekeepers (attorneys, accountants and others) for criminal prosecution (e.g. Glaxo case against Laura Stevens). Keep in mind that FCPA and other folks in DOJ want to do a wiretap case against a company like the recent insider trading case, only in the FCPA area. Good luck as you move forward. If there is anything I can do to help, let me know

  26. michael volkov says:

    You have definitely captured in one paragraph the difficulty of in-house positions in global companies. What makes it all the more scary is that DOJ is targeting gatekeepers (attorneys, accountants and others) for criminal prosecution (e.g. Glaxo case against Laura Stevens). Keep in mind that FCPA and other folks in DOJ want to do a wiretap case against a company like the recent insider trading case, only in the FCPA area. Good luck as you move forward. If there is anything I can do to help, let me know

  27. michael volkov says:

    You have definitely captured in one paragraph the difficulty of in-house positions in global companies. What makes it all the more scary is that DOJ is targeting gatekeepers (attorneys, accountants and others) for criminal prosecution (e.g. Glaxo case against Laura Stevens). Keep in mind that FCPA and other folks in DOJ want to do a wiretap case against a company like the recent insider trading case, only in the FCPA area. Good luck as you move forward. If there is anything I can do to help, let me know

  28. Anonymous says:

    Unfortunately, I learnt today that I am being run off, not clear of the terms. Outside counsel has moved on leaving those like me to suffer the consequences. Fortunately I have counsel and reported although now have to face the uncertainty of no job and the scares of being an ethical human being who stood up to a very powerful corporation. In a big way it is a sigh of relief as at the end of the day I can not work alongside unethical, immoral and criminal beings, and thats just describing the legal department I was a part of, it all comes down to greed and what people are willing to do to in order to earn a big pay check. Its not difficult to work our what counts the most, integrity, ethics and well being of you and your family.

  29. Anonymous says:

    Unfortunately, I learnt today that I am being run off, not clear of the terms. Outside counsel has moved on leaving those like me to suffer the consequences. Fortunately I have counsel and reported although now have to face the uncertainty of no job and the scares of being an ethical human being who stood up to a very powerful corporation. In a big way it is a sigh of relief as at the end of the day I can not work alongside unethical, immoral and criminal beings, and thats just describing the legal department I was a part of, it all comes down to greed and what people are willing to do to in order to earn a big pay check. Its not difficult to work our what counts the most, integrity, ethics and well being of you and your family.

  30. Anonymous says:

    Unfortunately, I learnt today that I am being run off, not clear of the terms. Outside counsel has moved on leaving those like me to suffer the consequences. Fortunately I have counsel and reported although now have to face the uncertainty of no job and the scares of being an ethical human being who stood up to a very powerful corporation. In a big way it is a sigh of relief as at the end of the day I can not work alongside unethical, immoral and criminal beings, and thats just describing the legal department I was a part of, it all comes down to greed and what people are willing to do to in order to earn a big pay check. Its not difficult to work our what counts the most, integrity, ethics and well being of you and your family.

  31. Anonymous says:

    Unfortunately, I learnt today that I am being run off, not clear of the terms. Outside counsel has moved on leaving those like me to suffer the consequences. Fortunately I have counsel and reported although now have to face the uncertainty of no job and the scares of being an ethical human being who stood up to a very powerful corporation. In a big way it is a sigh of relief as at the end of the day I can not work alongside unethical, immoral and criminal beings, and thats just describing the legal department I was a part of, it all comes down to greed and what people are willing to do to in order to earn a big pay check. Its not difficult to work our what counts the most, integrity, ethics and well being of you and your family.

  32. michael volkov says:

    Good luck — I hope things work out for you. You should rest assured that you did the right thing.

  33. michael volkov says:

    Good luck — I hope things work out for you. You should rest assured that you did the right thing.

  34. michael volkov says:

    Good luck — I hope things work out for you. You should rest assured that you did the right thing.

  35. michael volkov says:

    Good luck — I hope things work out for you. You should rest assured that you did the right thing.

  36. michael volkov says:

    Good luck — I hope things work out for you. You should rest assured that you did the right thing.

  37. Anonymous says:

    Thank you

  38. Anonymous says:

    Yes always self gratifying i have made a stance towards stamping out social injustice, unfortunately, i have to survive on the hope of a new job while corruptors continue their ways

  39. Anonymous says:

    Yes always self gratifying i have made a stance towards stamping out social injustice, unfortunately, i have to survive on the hope of a new job while corruptors continue their ways

  40. Anonymous says:

    Yes always self gratifying i have made a stance towards stamping out social injustice, unfortunately, i have to survive on the hope of a new job while corruptors continue their ways

  41. Anonymous says:

    Yes always self gratifying i have made a stance towards stamping out social injustice, unfortunately, i have to survive on the hope of a new job while corruptors continue their ways

  42. Anonymous says:

    I can not name the corruptors for fear of my and my family's life, sad to see expatriates join such a corrupt world of sand lubbers, i stress that no one descent to work in the middle east, it will end your career and potentially your life.

  43. Anonymous says:

    I can not name the corruptors for fear of my and my family's life, sad to see expatriates join such a corrupt world of sand lubbers, i stress that no one descent to work in the middle east, it will end your career and potentially your life.