Tag Archives: Marcus Thompson

DOJ Announces New Safe Harbor Policy to Encourage Acquiring Companies to Timely Disclose Misconduct Uncovered During M&A Transactions

by Jacquelyn M. Kasulis, Zachary S. Brez, Nick Niles, Meghan Dolan, Grace Zhu, Shruti Chandhok, Brian Benczkowski, Mark Filip, John Lausch, Kim B. Nemirow, Marcus Thompson, Asheesh Goel, Cori A. Lable, Erin Nealy Cox, and David Weiner

Top left to right: Jacquelyn M. Kasulis, Zachary S. Brez, Nick Niles, Meghan Dolan, and Grace Zhu.
Middle left to right: Brian Benczkowski, Mark Filip, John Lausch, Kim B. Nemirow, and Marcus Thompson.
Bottom left to right: Asheesh Goel, Cori A. Lable, Erin Nealy Cox, and David Weiner.
Not pictured: Shruti Chandhok.
(Photos courtesy of Kirkland & Ellis LLP)

Overview

Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco recently announced that the Department of Justice has adopted a new Mergers & Acquisitions Safe Harbor Policy, in remarks delivered at the Society of Corporate Compliance and Ethics’ 22nd Annual Compliance & Ethics Institute on October 4, 2023. Under the Safe Harbor Policy, acquiring companies will receive a presumption of declination of prosecution if they: (1) promptly and voluntarily disclose criminal misconduct within six months from closing of an acquisition, (2) cooperate with the DOJ’s investigation and (3) engage in timely and appropriate remediation, restitution and disgorgement. The Safe Harbor Policy, which will be applied department-wide, is a continuation of the DOJ’s efforts to incentivize voluntary self-disclosure and encourage companies to prioritize compliance.

Continue reading →

Singapore Introduces Deferred Prosecution Agreements

by Zachary S. Brez, Brigham Q. Cannon, Mark Filip, Asheesh Goel, Cori A. Lable, Kim B. Nemirow, Abdus Samad Pardesi, Richard Sharpe, William J. Stuckwisch, Marcus Thompson, Satnam Tumani, and Jodi Wu

On 19 March 2018, Singapore passed legislation introducing the concept of the deferred prosecution agreement (“DPA”) to the jurisdiction for the first time. Under the new laws, corporations (but not individuals) facing prosecution for offences of corruption, money laundering or receipt of stolen property may attempt to negotiate the terms of a DPA with prosecuting authorities, under which they would avoid prosecution, in return for adherence to various conditions imposed upon them, for a set period of time.

By introducing the DPA as an enforcement tool, Singapore joins the ranks of the United States[1], Brazil[2], the United Kingdom[3] and France,[4] which form the vanguard of an increasingly consistent global approach to corporate criminal resolutions. Australia and Canada are also both currently evaluating whether to introduce similar legislation. Continue reading →