Am 26.10.2009 wurde der Koalitionsvertrag für die 17. Legislaturperiode des deutschen Bundestages unterzeichnet. Er enthält Eckdaten für ein neues Bundesdatenschutzgesetz.
Scenario:A large company is defending itself in a breach of contract lawsuit. In order to prepare its defense, the company requests documents from the plaintiff that include electronically stored information (ESI). The company believes that plaintiff possesses certain emails and drafts of the contract that may refute plaintiff’s interpretation of the contract.
Companies are now facing stricter legal requirements: ignoring or losing sight of compulsory guidelines may cause penalties, damages, a negative impact on a company’s public image and finally result in an economic downturn. In contrast, a company can build confidence with owners, employees and customers by systematically ensuring that all applicable provisions are followed.
Künftig kommen auf Verantwortliche im Bereich Compliance neue Risiken zu. In einem erst kürzlich bekannt gewordenen Grundsatzurteil hat der Bundesgerichtshof (BGH) klargestellt, unter welchen Voraussetungen sich Compliance-Verantwortliche in Unternehmen strafbar machen können.
Mayer Brown LLP, a leading global law firm, announced today that the firm is ranked by Benchmark Litigation 2010 in three national practice categories - Antitrust, Appellate, and General Commercial Litigation. In addition, eight attorneys are nationally ranked as “Stars” in their practice area.
Auf Compliance-Beauftragte in Unternehmen kommen neue Risiken zu: In einem Grundsatzurteil hat der Bundesgerichtshof (BGH) die Funktion des Compliance Officer in Unternehmen hervorgehoben und klargestellt, unter welchen Voraussetzungen sich Compliance-Beauftragte selbst strafbar machen können, wenn Unternehmensangehörige Straftaten begehen (Urteil vom 17. Juli 2009 – 5 StR 394/08). Das Urteil ist bemerkenswert, weil es erstmals den strafrechtlichen Pflichtenkreis eines Compliance Officer höchstrichterlich umreißt und ihm dabei weitgehende Verpflichtungen auferlegt. - Compliance officers in companies have to face new risks: in a fundamental decision the Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof, BGH) has highlighted the position of compliance officers in companies and has clarified under which circumstances they may render themselves liable to prosecution if employees commit an offense (decision of 17 July 2009 – 5 StR 394/08). This decision is remarkable as it is the first time that Germany’s highest court outlines the duties of compliance officers under criminal law – and in doing so imposes far-reaching obligations.
Scenario: A large, publicly traded manufacturing company is sued by a class of shareholders claiming various securities law violations as well as a failure to disclose the declining sales of one of the company’s manufactured items. The plaintiff class issues a subpoena for documents to a key supplier of the manufactured item at issue.
Mabey & Johnson Ltd, a British company which manufactures bridge equipment, pleaded guilty at Southwark Crown Court to a series of corruption offences committed overseas and is to pay a total of £6.55m in connection with these offences. On Friday 25 September 2009 the company was ordered by the court to pay £4.6m in fines and disgorgement of profits. In addition, the company has undertaken to pay reparations to the affected countries.
The long-running BALCO steroid investigation that led to the indictment of Major League Baseball (MLB) star Barry Bonds has resulted in a potentially landmark decision related to the manner in which government agents apply for and execute search warrants for electronically stored information (ESI). In United States v. Comprehensive Drug Testing, Inc., No. 15-10067 (9th Cir. Aug. 26, 2009), the en banc Ninth Circuit affirmed a lower court ruling ordering the government to return an overbroad set of electronic
data seized under a search warrant.
Scenario: A series of privileged communications between in-house counsel and the board of directors was unintentionally produced to the opposing side during the pre-deposition discovery period in a federal action. During the deposition of one of the board members, the opposing side submits the set of privileged documents as an exhibit. There is no agreement or court order on file in the case dealing with the inadvertent production of privileged documents.
The Department of Justice (DOJ) and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) are continuing to aggressively pursue alleged violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) committed by corporations and individuals.
In today’s troubled economy, public companies face a greatly increased risk of reprisal by dismissed workers claiming whistleblower retaliation. This white paper aims to bring
companies and their counsel up to date regarding the most recent trends and the best practices for dealing with whistleblower retaliation complaints.
Scenario: A whistleblower alerts authorities that brokers in a large brokerage firm may have violated a number of regulations regarding communications. The US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) commences an investigation regarding whether one broker “tweeted” about a pending hostile takeover on his Twitter account and whether another broker received insider information about the takeover on his “wall” after a client “blogged” about it on Facebook.
On July 10, 2009, investor Frederic Bourke was convicted in New York of conspiring to violate the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”) and the Travel Act, and making false statements to authorities during an investigation. The allegations related to Bourke’s efforts to acquire interests in the Azeri state-owned oil company in the 1990s. Sentencing in the case is scheduled for October 2009, and Bourke faces up to 10 years in prison and a significant fine.
As part of its comprehensive immigration reform initiative, the Obama administration recently announced the settlement of an I-9 audit with Krispy Kreme and has promulgated a new worksite enforcement strategy that directs Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents to shift from targeting illegal workers to focusing their resources on “employers who cultivate illegal workplaces by breaking the country’s laws and knowingly hiring illegal workers.” On April 30, 2009, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) released a detailed “Worksite Enforcement Strategy” fact sheet that reflects this refocused effort.
Vermeidung und Verfolgung von Gesetzesverstößen sind für Unternehmen wichtiger als je zuvor. Leiten Vorstände und Geschäftsführer nicht die geeigneten Schritte zur Vermeidung von Korruption und anderen Wirtschaftsdelikten ein, droht ihnen persönliche Haftung; Unternehmen riskieren zudem Bußgelder in Millionenhöhe.
Mayer Brown is a global legal services organization comprising legal
practices that are separate entities (the "Mayer Brown Practices"). The
Mayer Brown Practices are: Mayer Brown LLP, a limited liability
partnership established in the United States; Mayer Brown International
LLP, a limited liability partnership incorporated in England and Wales;
and JSM, a Hong Kong partnership, and its associated entities in Asia. The
Mayer Brown Practices are known as Mayer Brown JSM in Asia. "Mayer Brown"
and the "Mayer Brown" logo are the trademarks of the individual Mayer
Brown Practices in their respective jurisdictions.
