One of the important questions about U.S. Department of Justice’s approach following the change of Presidential Administration two years ago was whether DOJ would continue emphasizing its policy of individual accountability in the agency’s 2015 statement known as the Yates Memo. In a recent speech, Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein announced changes to the policy. The changes, which are more in the form of an adjustment rather than a wholesale change, makes it clear that companies seeking cooperation credit no longer need to identify “all” individuals involved in the wrongdoing, so long as the companies identify those who were “substantially involved” in the misconduct. The text of Rosenstein’s November 29, 2018 speech to the American Conference Institute’s International Conference on the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, at which he announced the changes, can be found here.
Continue Reading Department of Justice Eases “Yates Memo” Requirements for Cooperation Credit
Deputy AG Emphasizes Continued Individual Accountability for Corporate Misconduct
As observers have been monitoring the evolving policies and priorities of the Department of Justice in the Trump administration, one of the questions has been what the agency’s approach will be to the guidelines laid out in the so-called Yates Memo. The Yates Memo, named for its author, the former Deputy Attorney General and former Acting Attorney General Sally Yates, reflected a commitment to holding individuals accountable for corporate wrongdoing. In a recent speech, the current Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein addressed the question of the current administration’s approach to individual accountability. His October 6, 2017 speech, a copy of which can be found here, appears to suggest that the current administration likely will continue to pursue the policies reflected in the Yates Memo. However, as discussed below, what that may mean in practice remains to be seen.
Continue Reading Deputy AG Emphasizes Continued Individual Accountability for Corporate Misconduct
Will the DOJ Priorities in the Yates Memo Continue in the New Administration?
Among the many questions surrounding the new incoming Presidential administration is the question of what direction the Trump administration will go with criminal and regulatory enforcement. And among the many specific questions under that topic heading is the question of whether or not the Department of Justice will continue the current agency policy of giving priority to holding individuals accountable for corporate wrongdoing. Based on early signs, all indications are that the current policy, embodied in the so-called Yates Memo, will continue under the new administration.
Continue Reading Will the DOJ Priorities in the Yates Memo Continue in the New Administration?
The Yates Memo and Civil Liability for Corporate Directors and Officers
It has now been over a year since the U.S. Department of Justice released the so-called Yates Memo, in which the agency stated its policy focused on individual accountability for corporate wrongdoing. As attorneys from the McDermott, Will & Emery firm noted in an October 11, 2016 post on the Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation blog (here), since the Yates Memo went into effect, observers have been watching for “telltale signs of whether the Yates Memo is really changing the way federal enforcement does business.” According to the blog post, two recent False Claims Act settlements that required corporate executives to make substantial monetary contributions to resolve civil enforcement actions filed against them may suggest that the anticipated Yates Memo-related change has arrived.
Continue Reading The Yates Memo and Civil Liability for Corporate Directors and Officers
Will the Yates Memo’s Emphasis on Individual Prosecution Have A Counterproductive Impact?
In a September 9, 2015 memo from Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, the U.S. Department of Justice described a new policy focused on individual accountability for corporate wrongdoing. The keystone of the policy embodied in the Yates memo is that for companies to receive any cooperation credit, they must completely disclosure “all relevant facts about individual misconduct.” According to an interesting May 26, 2016 memo from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s Institute for Legal Reform entitled “DOJ’s New Threshold for Cooperation” (here), the agency’s new threshold for cooperation credit is “likely to have a number of unintended consequences.” Among other things, the report notes, the new policy risks alienating personnel whose cooperation is essential to the investigation, and indeed may motivate individuals to seek individual counsel. These and other potential unintended consequences may mean that the agency’s new policy may have a counterproductive impact on corporate cooperation.
Continue Reading Will the Yates Memo’s Emphasis on Individual Prosecution Have A Counterproductive Impact?
The Yates Memo: What Impact So Far?
It has now been seven months since the U.S. Department of Justice announced — in the form of a September 9, 2015 memo from Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates — that it was adopting a policy focused on individual accountability for corporate wrongdoing. The keystone of the policy embodied in the Yates memo is that for companies to receive cooperation credit, they must completely disclosure “all relevant facts about individual misconduct.” As discussed below, the Yates memo is having an impact in a number of ways. However, according to an April 22, 2016 publication from the Clifford Chance law firm (here), the Yates memo may be having unintended consequences – it may actually be deterring companies from divulging information.
Continue Reading The Yates Memo: What Impact So Far?
The Yates Memo and the Potential Liabilities of Corporate Directors
Last September, amidst considerable fanfare, the U.S. Department of Justice released a new directive – now universally known as the Yates Memo – in which it restated and reinforced the agency’s commitment to targeting corporate executives in cases of corporate wrongdoing. The cornerstone of the agency’s new policies is the specification that in order for a company to qualify for any cooperation credit in connection with a DoJ investigation, the company must provide the agency with all relevant facts about the individuals involved in the misconduct. This same focus on individuals has been echoed by top SEC officials, including the SEC’s current chair. With several months’ of experience now under the new directive, it seems worth asking how the SEC renewed focus on individuals has translated into practice and what the implications are for corporate directors.
Continue Reading The Yates Memo and the Potential Liabilities of Corporate Directors
Corporate Indemnification and the Yates Memo
Although it is not something that is often considered, D&O insurance is in many ways a financial tool allowing companies to manage their indemnification obligations to their directors and officers. The D&O policy’s reimbursement coverage recompenses the company when it honors its indemnification obligations to its corporate officials, and the policy’s individual coverage (usual referred to as Side A coverage) protects the individuals when the company is unable to honor its indemnification obligations, whether due to insolvency or legal prohibition.
D&O insurance is of course a critical part of corporate risk management, but the fact is that indemnification is an even more basic and comprehensive source of protection for corporate executives. Even for companies that purchase and maintain significant levels of D&O insurance, corporate indemnification provides important protection for company officials. D&O insurance is subject to limits of liability, whereas indemnification is theoretically unlimited (although, of course, practically limited by the indemnifying company’s financial resources). Indemnification is often very broad, often extending “to the maximum extent permitted by law,” whereas D&O insurance polices contain numerous exclusions and conditions. In addition, D&O insurance must be renewed each year, with possible changes in terms and conditions. Indemnification rights are much less likely to be changed, particularly, as noted below, for corporate officials who negotiate their own indemnification contracts.
Indemnification, then, is a very important consideration for all corporate directors and officers. While this has long been true, indemnification arguably has taken on an increased importance in light of the recent action by the U.S. Department of Justice. As I discussed in a post at the time (here), in September the U.S. Department of Justice released a directive — referred to as “the Yates Memo” –restating and reinforcing the agency’s commitment to targeting corporate executives in cases of corporate wrongdoing. The cornerstone of the agency’s new policies is the specification that in order for a company to qualify for any cooperation credit in connection with a DoJ investigation, the company must provide the agency with all relevant facts about the individuals involved in the misconduct.
Continue Reading Corporate Indemnification and the Yates Memo