One of the most difficult questions faced by any management team is whether, absent a legal, regulatory or statutory duty to do so, its company should commence an internal investigation. The answer is simpler when a law enforcement agency is knocking at the company’s door, when the company receives a request for information to which it is compelled to respond or when it is the subject of a whistleblower or adverse press report. However, it is perhaps far less simple when an investigation is being voluntarily contemplated to assess the general health of the company. What happens if an issue is identified that might otherwise have remained undetected, that leads to significant costs, demands on management time, adverse press and, perhaps worse still, regulatory sanction or criminal prosecution? Might it be better to let sleeping dogs lie?

The question as to whether to undertake a voluntary investigation is one that, for many years, has caused management teams to scratch their collective heads. Given the issues that have affected many companies as a result of the worldwide COVID-19 pandemic, the question is increasingly being raised. As a result of the effects of COVID-19, some companies were rushed into decisions that they might otherwise have spent more time considering, compliance processes were shortened or even overlooked, and employees were afforded more opportunity to take autonomous decisions, often within the less supervised confines of a remote environment. Is 2021 the time to revisit some of the decisions that were made over the past year and to lift up the floorboards?

In this article, we suggest some of the advantages and disadvantages of undertaking a proactive, voluntary internal investigation. We also consider some of the ways in which a company could mitigate those potential disadvantages.

Continue Reading The Benefits and Risks of Conducting an Internal Investigation: Is it Better to Let Sleeping Dogs Lie?

Increasingly frequent cross-border investigations have raised difficult questions of privilege and work product protection over the last few years. In the United States, attorney-client privilege protects confidential communications between attorneys and clients for the purpose of seeking or rendering legal advice, and the work product doctrine protects documents or materials prepared in anticipation of litigation

On Wednesday, November 18, 2020, head of the DOJ Antitrust Division, Makan Delrahim, signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the DOJ and the Korean Prosecution Service (KPS) that supports increased cooperation between the two agencies in criminal antitrust enforcement and policy development. Delrahim was joined virtually by Prosecutor General Yoon from KPS for the signing ceremony.

In his signing ceremony remarks, Delrahim stated: “The Memorandum of Understanding is a shared recognition of the close ties between our agencies and our commitment to assisting one another in criminal cartel matters… [It] serves to memorialize and formalize what we have been implementing over the past few years.” He went on to highlight DOJ and KPS’s recent collaborations: shared enforcement training, cooperation and coordination on investigations, and exchange of information regarding policy initiatives.

Continue Reading DOJ Antitrust Division, Korean Prosecution Service Sign MOU

A little over a year after its creation the Procurement Collusion Strike Force has announced its first public indictments. The Strike Force was created to focus on rooting out collusion and related schemes aimed at impeding competition in public contracting. As DOJ made clear when the Strike Force was created, DOJ views price-fixing in government contracting as a particularly harmful since it directly harms U.S. taxpayers. The Strike Force includes prosecutors from both the DOJ Antitrust Division and United States Attorney’s offices, the FBI, and Inspectors General from the Department of Defense, the U.S. Postal Service, and the General Services Administration.

A federal grand jury in North Carolina indicted Contech Engineered Solutions LLC and Brent Brewbaker, a former executive at the company for their roles in a nearly decade-long conspiracy to rig bids for aluminum structure projects funded by the United States and the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT). Contech and Brewbaker were also charged with mail and wire fraud arising from acts in furtherance of the conspiracy. The case is part of a larger ongoing investigation into the aluminum structures industry.

Continue Reading Procurement Collusion Strike Force Issues Its First Indictment

The US Department of Education issued a highly anticipated report concluding that US colleges and universities have failed to disclose billions of dollars in foreign funding, as required by federal law.[1] The report provides greater detail on the Department’s ongoing probe of foreign influence in US higher education and highlights new compliance risks faced by colleges and universities.

Continue Reading Department of Education Report Highlights the Compliance Risks of Unreported Foreign Funding for US Colleges and Universities

The DC Circuit issued an opinion in late August that could significantly disrupt decades of Congressional investigations practice. In Comm. on the Judiciary of United States House of Representatives v. McGahn, No. 19-5331, 2020 WL 5104869 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 31, 2020), the DC Circuit effectively put an end to the US House Judiciary Committee’s

The Department of Justice Antitrust Division’s investigation into price-fixing by generic drug companies continues to remain one of the Antitrust Division’s most active matters. This week the Antitrust Division announced that it had indicted Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. (Teva), the seventh company to reach a resolution with the Antitrust Division in this investigation. Teva is one of the largest pharmaceutical companies in the world.

Teva Pharmaceuticals was charged for its role in three separate conspiracies to fix prices for generic drugs. Specifically, it alleges that Teva, in three separate conspiracies, engaged in the sharing with competitors of pricing information for certain generic drugs in advance of price increase announcements. The first alleged conspiracy involved pravastatin, which is a cholesterol medicine, and other generic drugs; the second alleged conspiracy involved drugs used to treat and manage arthritis, seizures, pain, skin conditions, and blood clots; and the third alleged conspiracy involved drugs used to treat brain cancer, cystic fibrosis, arthritis, and hypertension. The Antitrust Division alleges that the conspiracies lasted for a little over two years and began as early as May 2013 and lasted until around December 2015. The estimated amount of gain/loss for each conspiracy is $200 million, $75 million, and $75 million, respectively.

Continue Reading Another Generic Drug Company Accepts a Criminal Indictment Alleging Collusion

Please join Steptoe for an interactive discussion with Congressman Jamie Raskin and current and former senior staff from Capitol Hill and the Department of Justice on congressional and DOJ investigations into fraud and waste related to the CARES Act and COVID-19 relief funds.

Date: Monday, September 14, 2020

Time: 12:00 p.m. – 1:15 p.m. EDT

Yet another prosecution alleging that an academic failed to report ties to China illustrates the government’s multi-agency focus on this issue and the costs and pressures imposed on U.S. universities.

A Texas A&M engineering professor and NASA researcher was arrested and charged with several crimes stemming from allegedly hiding his ties to Chinese companies and universities.[1] In a criminal complaint unsealed on August 23, 2020, the DOJ charged Zhengdong Cheng with making false statements, conspiracy, and wire fraud based on allegations that he willfully deceived NASA and Texas A&M in connection with obtaining a NASA research grant.[2] Federal law prohibits NASA from entering into collaboration or coordination with China or any Chines-owned company.[3]

The case against Cheng represents only a part of Texas A&M’s interactions with the government on this issue. Over a year ago, on June 13, 2019, the U.S. Department of Education sent letters to Texas A&M and Georgetown explaining that the agency believed the schools were not fully reporting all funding received from other countries, including China.[4] At that time, Texas A&M said in a statement that school officials “are reviewing it and hope to have this resolved soon.”[5]

Continue Reading Another Talents Program Indictment Underscores Importance of Strong Compliance Program and Cooperation with Law Enforcement

In May 2020, the U.K. Financial Conduct Authority, the authority charged with regulating financial firms and maintaining the integrity of the financial markets in the United Kingdom, reported that whistleblowing reports to the Financial Conduct Authority on workplace culture issues in 2019 had increased by 35%. There is also evidence of an increase in whistleblowing reports made during the COVID-19 lockdown, with WhistleB, the Swedish-European provider of whistleblowing solutions, reporting an increase of 40% in the number of concerns raised by whistleblowers in Europe from January to May 2020. Similarly, in the United States, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) reported a 35% increase in the number of whistleblower tips, complaints and referrals between mid-March and mid-May 2020. And although the filing of whistleblower complaints (also known as “qui tam” complaints) are reported to be down compared to the same time last year, the recent distribution of billions of dollars in federal money to companies (discussed further below) is sure to reverse that trend.

In addition, there have been a number of high-profile press reports of investigations and enforcement actions which were prompted by whistleblower reports, with perhaps the most significant recent example being that of Wirecard AG, the German payment processor and financial services provider at the center of a financial scandal in Germany. In June 2020, the company reported €1.9 billion in missing cash. It is reported that Germany’s financial watchdog (BaFin) received a tip-off from a whistleblower about alleged irregularities at Wirecard.

In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, a wave of whistleblower reports alleging misconduct in key areas is likely to be inevitable. Whether they come via a regulator, a government authority, the media or directly to the company, companies must be prepared properly to tackle these cases as and when they arise, as a failure to do so could prove fatal to companies that are already fighting to recover from the detrimental economic impact caused by COVID-19. This will undoubtedly be made more difficult as those who usually investigate the reports are not in the office physically to gather all of the facts and evidence using established procedures. Perhaps more than ever, companies should understand the risks posed to their businesses and be ready for the inevitable emergence of whistleblower reports.

We consider below some of the main areas where whistleblowing reports are predicted to increase, as well as how companies can prepare to ensure that they are in the best position to handle any future claims.

Continue Reading Whistleblowing and Internal Investigations