DOJ Provides Guidance on Prosecution of Individuals

18 September 2015 Health Care Law Today Blog
Authors: Lisa M. Noller

The Department of Justice (DOJ) long has required entities seeking credit for cooperating with its investigations to provide what it terms “full and truthful” cooperation. In policies memorialized over time, DOJ has been careful to encourage companies to voluntarily come forward, yet has refrained from identifying exactly what it means to be “cooperative.” DOJ now has provided further guidance.

On September 9, Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates sent a memo to all DOJ attorneys – civil and criminal, in all of its divisions — explaining that to obtain tangible cooperation credit, companies must affirmatively identify all relevant facts relating to corporate malfeasance, including the individuals responsible for any misconduct. Companies may no longer claim a general failure of oversight, or a collective failure to appreciate issues, and still reap the benefit of a reduced sentence, non-prosecution agreement or deferred prosecution. Indeed, prosecutors are directed by this guidance to seek information about individuals early in investigations, and to share the information with their counterparts in other sections of DOJ.

While DOJ’s guidance is not new, it does underscore the fact that companies can only act through individuals, and entities cannot act with criminal intent. Therefore, even where a company wants to accept responsibility for wrongdoing, it must specifically identify those persons who took affirmative steps to act knowingly, or who intentionally buried their heads in the sand rather than investigate further.

When conducting an internal investigation of alleged wrongdoing, companies and their counsel must take DOJ’s most recent guidance to heart, and ask tough questions about who knew what facts when, and why specific individuals made decisions on the company’s behalf. Disclosing these individuals will not necessarily lead to their prosecution; however, failing to identify those actors almost certainly will be to the company’s detriment in plea negotiations.

Similarly, in civil cases and parallel civil/criminal investigations, counsel should meaningfully discuss actions taken by individuals, then argue for a lower settlement payment or damages multiplier based on the cooperation. DOJ’s guidance makes it plain that companies deserve credit for this undertaking, and counsel should seek specific benefits where they have identified individuals.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Insights

A Review of Recent Whistleblower Developments
19 July 2019
Legal News: Whistleblower Developments
Blockchain: A Tool With a Future in Healthcare
18 July 2019
Health Care Law Today
Do You Know What IMMEX Stands For?
16 July 2019
Dashboard Insights
Does The U.S. Need STRONGER Patents?
16 July 2019
PTAB Trial Insights
Review of 2020 Medicare Changes for Telehealth
11 December 2019
Member Call
2019 NDI Executive Exchange
14-15 November 2019
Chicago, IL
MAGI’s Clinical Research Conference
29 October 2019
Las Vegas, NV
Association for Corporate Counsel Annual Meeting 2019
27-30 October 2019
Phoenix, AZ