Summary: The House of Representatives must consider a bill that has been passed unanimously by the Senate that expands protections for whistleblowers.
According to CorpCounsel.com, the Senate has passed a bill that may make things difficult for some general counsel. If the law is enacted, it will expand protection for third-party whistleblowers who report criminal antitrust actions to the Department of Justice.
The law would mean that companies would have additional threats to worry about as they decided whether to disclose antitrust activity and seek leniency. Under the current Department of Justice Guidelines, the first company that reports an antitrust conspiracy may receive immunity from criminal prosecution. However, if it is reported by someone else, chances of immunity disappear.
If a whistleblower reports the activity before the company does, no leniency will be available. If the proposed bill is enacted, the company may not retaliate against the whistleblower. The whistleblower could be an agent, contractor, or employee.
Qualcomm is currently facing two antitrust investigations.
On July 22, the Senate unanimously passed the Criminal Antitrust Anti-Retaliation Act of 2015. Senator Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) introduced the bill.
Read about the practice of antitrust law here.
In a statement, Grassley commented, “Violators of antitrust laws put businesses and our economic wellbeing at risk, so whistleblowers who call attention to violators should be praised, not punished…Unfortunately, these folks often face retribution at work for their efforts to correct misconduct,” he added. “The [bill] protects these individuals from workplace retaliation and abuse [and] may also serve as a deterrent of future misconduct.”
The NCAA must pay $46 million in an antitrust case.
In the last Congress, the Senate passed similar legislation, but the House did not act on it. The current measure will go to the House for consideration. According to the National Law Review, the bill was also introduced in 2012 and 2013.
[poll id=”751″]
Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler posted about the possible impact on general counsel on its Antitrust Law Blog on August 4. The post said that the measure “may present some hurdles for in-house counsel, as in-house counsel may need to consider the possibility that a whistleblower may directly escalate a report of potential wrongdoing to DOJ before the company has a chance to self-report…Corporations already face a short timeframe for determining whether to apply for leniency under current legislation,” the post explained, “and they may be forced to make even quicker decisions if this act is passed.”
Source: CorpCounsel.com
Photo credit: thefiscaltimes.com
having blown the whistle on the theft by corporate managers and directors of more than $200 million in present value in 1982, and being reduced to loss of family, digging ditches and professional banishment as a result, the bill does not go far enough. i was destroyed with the full participation of the Mississippi State Bar because i obeyed in every detail DR 7-102(B)(1 and 2). so ruled the complaint tribunal when it granted summary judgment exonerating me after years of lies and corruption. “a law office is not a nest of vipers in which to hatch out frauds and perjuries.” Gebhardt v. United Railways Co., 220 S.W. 67 (Mo.1920). most people hire lawyers to help them break the law, not uphold it. now that i am retired what is left to worry about?
I prefer the term subvert the law rather than break the law.
that is the approach that non-lawyers want lawyers to take: NOTHING is illegal until a court says so. if a licensed attorney or CPA cannot tell illegal conduct when it is obvious, such as embezzlement, diversion of corporate money, making false reports to regulators or shareholders, who can? take a look at 18 USC 2 and 4. any person who aids abets counsels or acts in furtherance of a federal crime is equally guilty as all other participants. any person who is aware of a federal felony who does the least act to aid in concealing that crime is guilty of yet another criminal offense. Viktor Frankl wrote in Man’s Search for Meaning that the “delusion of reprieve” helped concentration camp inmates survive the horrors of the death camps. your choice of words in my opinion is nothing more than an artful dodge to delude yourself that you are not committing a crime. Murder is not illegal until you are convicted? YOU are not only free but required to assist your client in murder because he has not been convicted? Nix v. Whiteside. “A lawyer’s duty of zealous advocacy of a client’s interest is limited by an equally solemn duty to uphold the law and the standards of professional conduct.” Clark v. US, “The law will give no help to a client who consults an attorney to aid in the commission of a crime; the attorney must tell the truth.” I hope you will do some reading on the subject before you find yourself exposed to someone who has read my cases and briefs. i have been told that there is a bonus for US attorneys for any attorney they can convict. and, since attorneys are totally exposed in the presence of crime or fraud that is one of the first avenues of prosecutorial investigation. see, e.g. US v. O’Henry’s Film Works, and US v. Krasnov. See also, In Re Grand Jury. 640 F2d 49 (7th Cir. 1980). it is your license at stake. how do you want to lose it?
Yes, AUSA’s do get excited about attorneys or celebrities they can get in the crosshairs.