Corporate Prosecution Agreements Brought in $8.1B in 2018, Report Says
Monetary recoveries exploded to nearly $8.1 billion, which almost matched the 2012 high of $9 billion. A handful of high-value resolutions led to the large recovery amount, the report said.
January 11, 2019 at 04:34 PM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Corporate Counsel
There was a myth that enforcement actions against companies would decline under the Trump administration, but the latest numbers clearly show that law enforcement is robust, said Kendall Day, a partner at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher in Washington, D.C.
Day, a 15-year federal prosecutor and former acting U.S. deputy assistant attorney general, co-authored the law firm's year-end update on 2018 deferred and non-prosecution agreements with corporations, which was released Friday.
One piece of evidence in the report confirmed a robust enforcement year. Monetary recoveries exploded to nearly $8.1 billion, which almost matched the 2012 high of $9 billion. A handful of high-value resolutions led to the large recovery amount, the report said.
The report found that the number of agreements remained steady in 2018, with at least 24 deferred or non-prosecution agreements, one NPA addendum, and three declinations with disgorgement—sometimes called “NPA Lite.”
In comparison, 2017 saw 22 agreements. The report shows that under the Obama administration, the U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission averaged about 33 agreements per year, except for the one-time jump in 2015 when there were 102 agreements thanks to the Swiss Bank Program deals.
Gibson Dunn partner Joseph Warin, who chairs the law firm's litigation practice and co-chairs its white collar defense and investigations group, agreed with Day's assessment of 2018 activity.
“There were no surprises,” Warin said. “We saw continuity. A snapshot of this Republican year would look much the same as a shot earlier of the Democratic years. Whenever there is a change of administrations, people think there will be a fundamental sea change in enforcement. There's no sea change, except that the water continues to rise.”
Warin said one change in 2018 that general counsel should like was DOJ's new monitorship policy “that essentially says that monitors are not an automatic default on complex resolutions. They are the exception rather than the rule.”
He said his firm represented the Brazilian energy company Petroleo Brasileiro S.A., known as Petrobras, in a major non-prosecution agreement with DOJ last year, and no monitor was imposed. “We wanted to see if that policy was going to have operational impact, and it appears that it is,” he said.
Another key development, Day said, was a restating of what a corporation needs to do to earn cooperation credit from prosecutors. “DOJ continues to emphasize cooperation [in investigations],” Day noted, “almost to the extent that some other factors are de-emphasized, such as a robust compliance program.”
He said corporate cooperation can be “tailored toward producing information about some of the wrongdoers without requiring corporations to boil the ocean to find individuals.”
Warin said 2018 activity showed that the concept of deferred and non-prosecution agreements “is fully embedded in the jurisprudence of prosecuting corporations. There have been nearly 500 of them now.”
He called the deals a “core vehicle” for resolving criminal disputes between DOJ and companies.
“Multiple administrations and leadership of DOJ have reinforced that,” he added. “Whether under Democrats or Republicans, these instruments are here to stay.”
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllLitigators of the Week: A Win for Homeless Veterans On the VA's West LA Campus
'The Most Peculiar Federal Court in the Country' Comes to Berkeley Law
The New Federal Sentencing Factor in Downstate New York? Prison Conditions
'Vision': Judge David Tatel on the Value of Oral Argument and Reading Drafts Aloud
Trending Stories
- 1Deception or Coercion? California Supreme Court Grants Review in Jailhouse Confession Case
- 2State Bar of Georgia Presents Access to Justice Pro Bono Awards
- 3Tips For Creating Holiday Plans That Everyone Can Be Grateful For
- 4Red Tape, Talent Wars & Pricey Office Space Greet Firms Entering Saudi Arabia
- 5A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to Becoming Clerk of the Forum
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250