Such fines have occasionally sparked a debate about whether corporate accountability and corporate fines are a meaningful punishment for antitrust crimes. For instance, I participated in a panel discussion on this topic at the Bundeskartellamt’s Berlin Conference last year. During the discussion, a panelist provocatively suggested that competition enforcers are “drunk on fines” and suggested that corporate fines are not serving their intended deterrent purpose.
Congressional Research Service： “Obstruction of Justice: An Overview of Some of the Federal Statutes That Prohibit Interference with Judicial, Executive, or Legislative Activities”
”…………….Obstruction of justice is the impediment of governmental activities. There are a host of federal criminal laws that prohibit obstructions of justice. The six most general outlaw obstruction of judicial proceedings (18 U.S.C. 1503), witness tampering (18 U.S.C. 1512), witness retaliation (18 U.S.C. 1513), obstruction of congressional or administrative proceedings (18 U.S.C. 1505), conspiracy to defraud the United States (18 U.S.C. 371), and contempt (a creature of statute, rule and common law).
”Olympus settles with whistleblower after 8-year battle”
”A corporate whistleblower’s eight-year courtroom battle against Japanese medical device maker Olympus Corp ended Thursday with a financial settlement and a promise from the company to stop harassing him.
3/3 BDTI Seminar: “Global Trends in Antitrust Enforcement: What the Future Holds”
Japan’s Antimonopoly Act (the AMA) was recently amended so as to adopt a wider and deeper scope for the surcharge system, a leniency program, and the authority to investigate criminal cases as measures to strengthen enforcement.
At the same time, the TPP (which has been largely agreed upon) includes a provision which introduces a so-called “commitment” program in which corporations voluntarily address problems following agreements with the “national competition authority”. (This is the terminology used in the TPP.) Discussion about how to implement this feature of the TPP is now underway in Japan’s Fair Trade Commission (the JFTC). Moreover, the JFTC has shown showed interest in commencing discussions this year concerning a discretionary surcharge system. As if that was not enough, it seems that the AMA will soon be substantially amended again. Japan’s “national competition authority” is changing its views, and discussions within it are being influenced by enforcement practices in foreign countries.
Kenju Watanabe: “Control Transaction Governance: Collective Action and Asymmetric Information – Problems and ex Post Policing”
This article is highly original and of great importance to the debate about private enforcement of corporate and securities laws in that it is the first to 1)articulate the doctrinal prerequisites for effective ex post judicial policing of fiduciaries in control transactions and 2) theoretically unify two seemingly distinct approaches to police control transactions‐‐the ex post judicial policing in the United States and the ex ante policing by the Takeover Panel in the UnitedKingdom. Shareholder collective action and asymmetric informatio
Paul Hastings – “Navigating the Minefield of Whistleblower Investigations”
Useful presentation by Paul Hastings on the growing prominence of whistleblowers in US law and theunique issues they present, including:
Review of notable recent cases
Relevant whistleblower provisions by agency
Navigating whistleblower issues and investigations of
whistleblower allegations
Kenju Watanabe: “Control Transaction Governance: Collective Action and Asymmetric Information – Problems and ex Post Policing”
Collective action and asymmetric information problems resulting from
dispersed ownership necessitate the use of agents. These twin problems and relatedagency problems induce control transactions as a solution. These problems, however,also cause dilemmas relating to the governance of control transactions. An ex postjudicial intervention may be employed as a solution for the dilemmas.
MoFo: “Department Of Justice Official Provides Fresh Guidance on What Constitutes an Effective Corporate Compliance Program”
Morrison Foerster: When can a corporation’s compliance program help stave off indictment? Or at least secure it more lenient treatment from the Department of Justice when resolving a case? DOJ has given fresh guidance on this issue for our clients, signaling what we see as a new emphasis in evaluating corporate compliance. That guidance came in October 7, 2014 remarks by Marshall L. Miller, the Criminal Division’s Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General (PDAAG).
Skadden: “Cross-Border Investigations Update”
Skadden has published a useful report about trends and specific developments and cases relevant to this topic. Today’s multinational corporations are well aware that regulatory and law enforcement investigations are often global in scope. U.S. authorities, for example, currently are conducting high-profile cross-border investigations concerning corrupt practices or bribery, market manipulation, tax fraud, price-fixing and sanctions violations, among other areas.
Canadian Disclosure Rules Regarding Women on Boards, Effective in 2015
（Quote from Andrew MacDougall,Partner at Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP） Securities administrators in all Canadian jurisdictions other than Alberta and British Columbia have approved the final rule. The new rule is largely unchanged from the proposals issued earlier this year.