Tag Archives: Anthony S. Barkow

Do Your ESG Disclosures Need Leveling Up? Leading Video Game Company Faces SEC Investigation into Its Harassment and Discrimination Disclosures as It Reaches $18 Million Settlement with EEOC

by Anne Cortina Perry, Anthony S. Barkow, Charles D. Riely, Lori B. Day, Tali R. Leinwand, and Anna Windemuth

Recent activity by two federal regulators underscores an increasingly obvious reality: when a company is confronted with harassment and discrimination complaints, government agencies will scrutinize its response and may bring enforcement actions. For months, video game maker Activision Blizzard (“Activision”) has been dealing with negative publicity and litigation relating to allegations that it allowed pervasive sexual harassment and discrimination to occur and failed to appropriately respond. Just three weeks ago, Activision confirmed that the US Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) was investigating the sufficiency of its disclosures.[1] In the latest news concerning the company, Activision publicly disclosed two weeks ago that it was resolving a case with the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) by making an $18 million payment to establish a victim fund.[2] This client alert analyzes these developments, the other civil and regulatory issues faced by Activision, and discusses steps companies can take when confronted with harassment or other work conduct allegations.

Continue reading →

The Latest Step in DOJ’s Compliance Mission: Takeaways from the Updated Guidance on Evaluating Corporate Compliance Programs

by Anthony S. Barkow, David Bitkower, Erin R. Schrantz, Keisha N. Stanford, Jessica A. Martinez, Manuel C. Possolo

On Monday, June 1, 2020, the Department of Justice (DOJ) Criminal Division released updated guidance regarding the “Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs (PDF: 209 KB).”  Now in its third iteration, this guidance replaces the April 2019 version (PDF: 179 KB), which originated from a set of 2017 guidelines from the Fraud Section.  The updated guidance, like prior iterations, seeks to make corporations aware of the criteria DOJ uses when evaluating compliance programs in making enforcement decisions.  In the latest version, DOJ maintains the existing structure and much of the prior content, but makes targeted changes.

The new revisions are part of a continuing trend at DOJ to more holistically assess corporate compliance programs beyond the specific issue that brought the company to the Department’s attention, jettisoning the more tailored approach of the original 2017 guidance.  In addition, the revisions amplify certain themes in DOJ’s compliance review criteria:  (1) whether a company has demonstrable processes to continuously improve its compliance program; (2) the extent to which available data is mined and analyzed to evaluate the company’s compliance efforts; and (3) how compliance is embedded in the day-to-day operations of the business and viewed by rank-and-file employees. Continue reading →

The Effect of Brexit on UK and U.S. Enforcement

by Anthony S. Barkow and David C. Lachman

The decision by British voters to exit the European Union (EU) has ushered in what is likely to be a prolonged period of uncertainty as the United Kingdom (UK) seeks to define its future relationship with the EU. Brexit’s effect on enforcement policy and the investigation and prosecution of white collar crime is one area that should be of great interest to international companies with operations in the UK, their general counsel, and cross-border practitioners. At first blush, it might appear that Brexit’s impact on enforcement will be minimal, because many of the relevant UK laws are independent of EU law. The uncertainty that Brexit portends for the UK generally, however, is equally applicable in the white collar arena. Continue reading →