Scherzer Blog

Massachusetts employers cannot ask about criminal history on initial job applications

As of November 4, 2010, Massachusetts employers are prohibited from asking about criminal records on the initial job application, except for positions for which a federal or state law, regulation or accreditation disqualifies an applicant based on a conviction, or if the employer is mandated by a federal or state law or regulation not to employ
individuals who have been convicted of a crime.

The new law also has two provisions that will become effective February 6, 2012. Under the first provision, an employer in possession of criminal record information must disclose that information to the applicant, prior to asking about it. And similar to the requirements of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, if an employer decides not to hire an
applicant in whole or in part because of the criminal record, the employer must provide the applicant with a copy of the record.

The second provision requires employers who conduct five or more criminal background investigations annually to implement and maintain a written criminal record information policy. The policy, at minimum, must specify procedures for (1) notifying applicants of the potential for an adverse decision based on the criminal record, (2) providing
a copy of the criminal record and the written policy to applicants, and (3) dispensing information to applicants about the process for correcting errors on their criminal record.

The law imposes penalties (including imprisonment for up to one year or a fine of up to $5,000 for an individual and $50,000 for a company) for those who request or require an applicant to provide a copy of his/her criminal record except under conditions authorized by law, and prohibits harassment of the subject of the criminal record (punishable by imprisonment of up to one year, or a fine of not more than $5,000.)

November 16th, 2010|Criminal Activity, Educational Series, Employment Decisions, Legislation|

Corporate misconduct can preclude directors from serving on other boards

Due diligence on current and prospective board directors should extend not only to the legal liability exposure but also to the possibility of losing valuable opportunities for board membership at other firms,” said Jason Schloetzer, assistant professor of accounting at Georgetown University’s McDonough School of Business and author of The Conference Board Report. “In the current litigation environment, it is particularly important for the board to demonstrate to shareholders and the judicial system that any failure to prevent or discover corporate misconduct took place in spite of the rigorous performance by the board of its oversight duties, including the establishment of a state-of-the-art compliance program.”

The Conference Board Report, released November 4, 2010, analyzed the changes in directorships held by outside board members of 113 public companies involved in shareholder class-action lawsuits that alleged misrepresentation of information to investors. The study, encompassing the period of 1996 to 2005, tracked directorship changes for three years after the start of litigation and used data from proxy statements to identify director turnover.

Within three years of litigation, 83.2% of outside directors remained on the board of the public company involved in the lawsuit, the study found. Related research showed that outside directors in firms involved in litigation did not appear to turn over any more frequently than the average among all outside directors. However, outside directors whose companies were involved in litigation experienced reduced opportunities to serve on other companies’ boards. The average number of board seats held by these individuals at other companies dropped from 0.95 in the year prior to the litigation to 0.47 three years after the suit was filed.

November 9th, 2010|Criminal Activity, Educational Series|

Supreme court ruling may ban consumer class-action lawsuits

A case that goes before the U.S. Supreme Court tomorrow, AT&T Mobility vs. Concepcion, may potentially ban consumers from filing class-action lawsuits. The basic question that will be decided is whether companies can bar class-actions in the fine print of their take-it-or-leave-it contracts with customers (and employees.)

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California ruled that a class-action ban violates state law and is not preempted by federal law; the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the lower-court ruling last year.

If a majority of the nine justices vote AT&T’s way, any business that issues a contract to customers — such as for credit cards, cell phones or cable TV — would be able to prevent them from joining class-action lawsuits. Class-actions allow plaintiffs to band together in seeking compensation or redress, thus giving more substance to their claims.

And the banning of class-actions may potentially apply to employment agreements such as union contracts…

November 8th, 2010|Judgment, Lawsuit|

Green-energy scams put portfolios in the red

The emerging green-energy market has created a horde of fraudsters. So many, in fact, that late last year, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) warned about schemes that promise large gains from investments in companies that pitch alternative, renewable or waste-to-energy products. And in May of this year, the Securities & Exchange Commission (SEC) followed with its own alert about potential scams that exploit the Gulf oil spill and related cleanup efforts.

The green-energy get-rich-quick schemes are showing up in blog posts, e-mail, infomercials, Internet message boards, text messages, and Twitter. As with most investment scams, all promise unrealistic returns, such a 200 percent stock gain by a solar panel company, a one-in-a-million deal to get a “51 times” return on current stock value from a China wind-power enterprise, and a 500 percent one week stock gain by a hydrogen-based energy outfit.

Of course, the regulators are on the lookout for the scammers. In one recently filed case, the SEC charged that promoters of eco-friendly investment opportunities lured 300 investors into a $30 million Ponzi scheme, encouraging the participants to finance “green” initiatives of Mantria Corporation, including a purported “carbon negative” housing community in rural Tennessee and a “bio-char” charcoal substitute made from organic waste. Investors were promised returns ranging from 17 percent to “hundreds of percent” annually. But, according to the SEC’s complaint, Mantria did not generate any income from which such extraordinary returns could be paid.

As cautioned by the SEC, the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico brought additional scam opportunities for cons promising financial gains from investments in companies that claim to be involved in the cleanup operations. In May and June 2010, the SEC suspended the trading in shares of ACT Clean Technologies Inc. of Huntington Beach, CA, and Green Energy Resources, Inc. of New York, NY, because, among other issues, questions arose about the accuracy and adequacy of the publicly disseminated information by the companies.

To dodge green-energy investment scams (and other frauds) investigate before investing! And:

Never rely solely on information contained in an unsolicited communication.
Find out who sent the investment recommendations; many companies and individuals that tout stocks are paid by the company being promoted.
Examine the fine print for any statements indicating payments in cash or in stock for issuing the report or message.
Find out where the stock trades. Most unsolicited recommendations involve stocks that do not meet the listing requirements of the major stock exchanges; they are usually quoted on the OTC Bulletin Board or in the Pink Sheets, which do not impose minimum qualitative standards. Many of the OTC or Pink Sheets stocks trade infrequently which can make shares difficult to sell. When these stocks do trade, they may fluctuate in price very rapidly.
Read the company’s SEC filings to verify information.
Exercise skepticism and be wary of any pitch that suggests immediate pay-offs, especially if the investment involves a start-up company or a product or service that is still in development.

October 19th, 2010|Educational Series, Green Technology|

SEC’s proposed rule requires issuers and underwriters of asset-backed securities to make due diligence findings available to the public

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) issued on October 13, 2010 a proposal to enhance disclosure to investors in the asset-backed securities market. The proposed rule requires issuers of asset-backed securities (ABS) to perform a review of the assets underlying the securities, and publicly disclose information relating to the review. The proposal also requires an issuer or underwriter of ABS to make publicly available the findings and conclusions of any third-party due diligence report.

The SEC’s proposed rule would enhance ABS disclosure in three ways:
Issuers of ABS that are registered with the SEC would be required to perform a review of the bundled assets that underlie the ABS.
Proposed amendments to Regulation AB would require an ABS issuer to disclose the nature, findings and conclusions of this review of assets.
Issuer or underwriter of both registered and unregistered ABS offerings would be required to disclose the findings and conclusions of any review performed by a third-party that was hired to conduct such a review.

In addition to this rule, the Commission last week proposed regulations that require issuers of ABS — and credit rating agencies that rate ABS — to provide investors with new disclosures about representations, warranties, and enforcement mechanisms. And, in April 2010, the Commission proposed rules that would revise the disclosure, reporting and offering process for ABS to better protect investors in the securitization market.

The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act requires the Commission to adopt rules regarding the review of assets, such as loans, underlying the securities no later than 180 days after enactment.

October 15th, 2010|Educational Series, Legislation|

Spotlight on Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) compliance

All U.S. firms seeking to do business in foreign markets must be familiar with the FCPA. Enacted in 1977 and amended several times since then, the FCPA generally states that if a foreign company has any footprint in the U.S., even simply wiring money through it, that company is subject to prosecution if involved in corrupt payments to foreign officials for the purpose of obtaining or keeping business.

The FCPA applies to any individual, firm, officer, director, employee, or agent of a firm and any stockholder acting on behalf of a firm. U.S. parent corporations also may be held liable for the acts of foreign subsidiaries where they authorized, directed, or controlled the activity in question, as can U.S. citizens or residents, who were employed by or acting on behalf of such foreign subsidiaries. The same provisions essentially extend to intermediaries which include joint venture partners or agents.

Between 2006 and 2009, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), both of which have jurisdiction over the FCPA, initiated more enforcement actions than in the first 28 years of the FCPA’s existence. And the financial penalties for violations have skyrocketed. In December 2008, Siemens AG, Europe’s largest engineering firm, pleaded guilty to violating U.S. anti-corruption laws and was ordered to pay $1.6 billion to settle bribery charges in U.S. and Germany.

To ensure FCPA compliance, the DOJ recommends that companies exercise risk-based due diligence to ensure that they are doing business with reputable and qualified entities and representatives. The due diligence process, at minimum, should include investigating potential foreign representatives and joint venture partners to determine their general reputation and qualifications, whether they have personal or professional ties to the government, the reputation of their clients, and their history with the U.S. Embassy or Consulate, local bankers and other business associates. Additionally, the U.S. firm should be aware of “red flags,” i.e., unusual payment patterns or financial arrangements, indicators of corruption in the country or the particular industry, or refusal by the foreign joint venture partner or representative to provide certification that it will not engage in actions to further an unlawful offer, promise, or payment to a foreign public official and not cause the firm to be in violation of the FCPA (such as paying unusually high commissions, lacking transparency in expenses and accounting records, or retaining a joint venture partner or representative that has been referred by a government official.)

Capturing recent headlines are the changes to the FCPA-related compliance and ethics provisions of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines for Organizations that will become effective in November 2010. The amendments provide that a meaningful compliance program requires, among other actions, that when criminal conduct is detected, the company implement “reasonable steps to respond appropriately … to prevent further similar conduct.” An annotation to that provision specifies that the actions include “assessing the compliance and ethics program and making modifications necessary to ensure that the program is effective … and possibly including the use of an outside professional advisor to ensure adequate assessment and implementation of any modifications.”

The Guidelines also state that a board must be knowledgeable about the content and operation of the company’s compliance program and must “exercise reasonable oversight with respect to the implementation and effectiveness of its compliance and ethics.” Likewise, the DOJ’s prosecution guidelines consider whether the board exercises independent reviews of the compliance program and whether it is provided with information sufficient to enable the exercise of independent judgment. Directors have similar “Caremark” oversight duties arising under case law and various other directives, such as stock exchange rules, Sarbanes-Oxley, and audit committee charters.

October 14th, 2010|Educational Series, Legislation|

One of many case studies from our files that stopped a deal in its tracks

Our client, a commercial lender, requested background investigations of a consumer products company and its two principals in connection with their application for working capital financing. The loan officer was familiar with the subjects, and was astonished by the information that SI quickly uncovered. Searches of federal court records revealed a 2008 action filed against the subjects under the Federal Trade Commission Act for falsely advertising that using their electronic exercise belt caused weight and inch loss without exercise. The action was resolved by stipulated orders as part of a global settlement of both the FTC’s lawsuit and related actions brought by county and city prosecutors. The subjects and certain retailers collectively were ordered to pay over $2 million. The FTC and state orders further barred the defendants from making false advertising claims for the product or any similar device, and provided other injunctive relief to prevent future deceptive practices. And the subjects’ nefarious acts did not stop here. Both principals had several unpaid tax liens and judgments ranging in amounts from $48,000 to $650,000, and both were convicted within the last two years of driving under the influence of alcohol.

October 1st, 2010|Criminal Activity, Judgment, Taxes|

A look into money laundering

In U.S. law, money laundering is the process of engaging in financial transactions to conceal the identity, source, and/or destination of illegally gained money. It is believed that the term “money laundering” originated from the Mafia’s ownership of Laundromats whereby large sums of money were made through illegitimate activities that showed origination from a legitimate-appearing business.

The U.S. Criminal Code contains more than 100 predicate offenses to the crime of money laundering, which include drug trafficking, smuggling, prostitution rings, illegal arms sales, embezzlement, insider trading, bribery, and computer fraud. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) considers money laundering a “tax evasion in progress.” And when no other crimes could be pinned to Al Capone, the IRS obtained a conviction for tax evasion. Leaving the courthouse, Capone said, “This is preposterous. You can’t tax illegal income!” Had the money laundering statutes been in effect in the 1930s, Capone also would have been charged with this crime. However, since October 1986, with the passage of the Money Laundering Control Act, organized crime members and many others have been convicted of both tax evasion and money laundering.

One of the most notable money laundering cases was settled in March of this year. Wachovia Bank, which is owned by Wells Fargo & Co., reached a $160 million settlement with the Justice Department over allegations that a failure in bank controls enabled drug traffickers to launder drug money by transferring $420 billion from Mexican currency-exchange houses to the bank. Under a deferred-prosecution agreement, Wachovia “admitted failure to identify, detect, and report suspicious transactions in third-party payment processor accounts.”

And money laundering has even reached the Vatican. Media reports from the past week say that the Vatican Bank, along with its chairman Ettore Gotti Tedeschi and director general, Paolo Cipriani, have been targeted for alleged violations of money laundering laws. Italian authorities temporarily froze 23 million euros ($30 million) from an account registered to the Institute for Works of Religion (IOR) a.k.a. the Vatican Bank. The investigation was opened after the Bank of Italy, adhering to anti-money-laundering directives issued by the European Union, alerted officials to two suspicious transfers on September 6, 2010. The Holy See expressed surprise at the allegations.

September 28th, 2010|Criminal Activity, Educational Series|

Decisions in two cases to set precedence for auditors’ fraud liability

It all started in 1905 with the lawsuit Smith v. London Assurance Corporation whereby an auditor was held liable for failing to audit its client’s branch office and detecting embezzlement.

Now more than 100 years later, the legal liability of auditors in detecting corporate fraud will be decided in two cases that were heard on Tuesday, September 14, 2010, in the New York Court of Appeals, potentially increasing the Big Four accountants’ exposure to multibillion-dollar shareholder lawsuits for malpractice. In both cases, the court will rule whether auditors can rely on the legal doctrine of in pari delicto (“in equal fault”) to reject claims for fraud allegedly committed by company insiders. The doctrine prevents someone from recovering damages from a defendant if that someone is also at fault. The argument is whether the shareholders, as owners of the company, can be held at fault for frauds committed within the company and barred from suing its auditors for not discovering the wrongdoing.

The first lawsuit facing scrutiny was filed by the shareholders of AIG against PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC), the insurer’s auditor. The shareholders claim that PwC failed in its job as auditors in the early 2000s, when various AIG officers and directors, including ex-CEO Maurice Greenberg, allegedly engaged in fraudulent transactions to pad AIG’s bottom line. Authorities subsequently caught the fraud, and AIG had to restate years of financial statements that “eventually reduced stockholder equity by $3.5 billion.” AIG ended up paying more than $1.5 billion in fines, and the shareholders say that since PwC missed the fraud, they should be allowed to sue PwC for malpractice. The Chancery Court in Delaware dismissed their request to sue PwC, and the case was appealed in Delaware’s Supreme Court. That court asked the New York’s Court of Appeals to decide whether the shareholders have a claim under New York law.

The second case relates to protracted litigation by the bankruptcy trustee of Refco Inc., the failed futures broker, seeking damages from a number of the firm’s professional advisers, and auditors including Grant Thornton, KPMG LLP, Ernst & Young LLP, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, Mayer Brown, LLP, et al. The trustee alleges that Refco’s outside counsel Mayer Brown, and several other insiders are liable for defrauding Refco’s creditors by helping the defunct company conceal hundreds of millions of dollars in uncollectible debt. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit found that the trustee’s argument to revive claims against the corporate insiders raised unresolved questions concerning his standing under New York law to sue third-parties for Refco’s fraud.

September 17th, 2010|Fraud, Judgment|

Illinois Employee Credit Privacy Act (096-1426)

Effective January 1, 2011, the Act will prohibit employers, in many circumstances, from inquiring about or using an employee’s or prospective employee’s credit history as a basis for employment, recruitment, discharge, or compensation. The Act also will prohibit an employer from retaliating or discriminating against a person who files a complaint under the Act, participates in an investigation, proceeding or action concerning a violation of the Act, or opposes violation of the Act. Pursuant to the Act, an employer will not:

Fail or refuse to hire or recruit, discharge, or otherwise discriminate against an individual with respect to employment, compensation, term, condition, or privilege of employment because of the individual’s credit history or credit report.
Inquire about an applicant’s or employee’s credit history.
Order or obtain an applicant’s or employee’s credit report from a consumer reporting agency.

Exceptions to the Act are as follows:

State or federal law requires bonding or other security covering the individual holding the position.
Duties of the position include custody of or unsupervised access to cash or marketable assets valued at $2,500 or more.
Duties of the position include signatory power over business assets of over $100 or more per transaction.
Position is managerial, and involves setting the direction or control of the business.
Position involves access to personal or confidential information, financial information, trade secrets, or state or federal national security information.

The Act also states that nothing in its provisions shall prohibit employers from conducting a thorough background investigation which may include obtaining a consumer report and/or investigative report without information on credit history, as permitted by the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA).

September 10th, 2010|Educational Series, Employment Decisions, Legislation|

Previous 545556 Next