Focus on holding individuals responsible in corporate
investigations
In what appears to be a renewed energy and focus on holding
individual employees, not just their corporations, accountable for
violating the law, on September 9 the Department of Justice issued
what is being referred to as the Yates Memo. The memo, titled
"Individual Accountability for Corporate
Wrongdoing" and authored by Deputy Attorney General Sally
Quillian Yates, was distributed to all US Attorneys across the
country, as well as to the Director of the FBI and other Federal
government prosecutors. Ms. Yates states that "this memo is
designed to ensure that all attorneys across the Department are
consistent in our best efforts to hold to account the individuals
responsible for illegal corporate conduct."
The memo clearly instructs Federal government prosecutors in both
civil and criminal investigations to fully leverage resources to
"identify culpable individuals at all levels in corporate
cases." It is clear that the government intends to send a
strong message to corporate executives that there is a renewed
focus on individual (and in particular C-Suite)
accountability.
The Yates Memo sets forth six key steps the government intends to
follow to strengthen pursuit of individual accountability in both
currently pending and future investigations:
- To be eligible for any cooperation credit, corporations must provide to the Department all relevant facts about the individuals involved in corporate misconduct.
- Both criminal and civil corporate investigations should focus on individuals from the inception of the investigation.
- Criminal and civil attorneys handling corporate investigations should be in routine communication with one another.
- Absent extraordinary circumstances, no corporate resolution will provide protection from criminal or civil liability for any individuals.
- Corporate cases should not be resolved without a clear plan to resolve related individual cases before the statute of limitations expires and declinations as to individuals in such cases must be memorialized.
- Civil attorneys should consistently focus on individuals as well as the company and evaluate whether to bring suit against an individual based on considerations beyond that individual's ability to pay.
Going forward what we can expect is that prosecutors and civil
enforcement agencies will feel emboldened to focus on individuals
at early stages in an investigation and will seek detailed
information from the company about who was involved in
decision-making. Likely, we will also see the government asking for
additional details and specifics from the company's internal
investigation, which can resurrect similar challenges to the
attorney-client privilege that companies once faced under the
Department's Thompson Memo. It may also make it more difficult
for a company to resolve an investigation and, in any event, the
time to resolution may be extended because the government may not
be willing to settle with the company before it concludes its
investigation of individuals.
While it remains to be seen what the long-term impact of the Yates
Memo will be, it is clear that the government intends to keep the
pressure on individuals within companies to feel personal risk for
corporate actions. Companies are wise to create or continue to
maintain a strong compliance program, which is continuously
evaluated for areas of improvement, and which includes robust
policies, employee training, means for employees to "report
up" concerns, investigations of potential policy violations,
and appropriate remedial actions. Likewise, dedicating adequate
financial and human resources to support that compliance program
and having strong management and Board support and oversight of the
program can help demonstrate that corporate executives are serious
about compliance.
One potential result of the Yates Memo is that individual employees
and officers of an entity under investigation may be quicker to
demand their own counsel and indemnification for legal costs. If
the government truly focuses on individual liability, the potential
need for separate personal counsel and the possibility of multiple
settlements will more quickly erode D&O policy limits.
Moreover, with individuals targeted, the specter of prison
sentences may result in more trials (and their attendant cost).
Thus, D&O policy limits should be revisited. Finally, the Yates
memo underscores the need to pay careful attention to provisions
related to coverage for internal and external investigations. For a
more complete discussion of investigation insurance, see
http://www.icemiller.com/ice-on-fire-insights/publications/investigation-insurance/.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.