<![CDATA[Morvillo Abramowitz Grand Iason & Anello PC]]> http://www.maglaw.com/misc/feed.xml en-us <![CDATA[IRS Summons Enforcement After 'United States v. Clarke']]> http://www.maglaw.com/publications/articles/00378 http://www.maglaw.com/publications/articles/00378 IRS agents conducting audits have the power to issue summonses requiring taxpayers and third parties to produce documents and testify under oath. In a summons enforcement action, the recipient of a summons can avoid providing the requested evidence by showing that the summons was issued for an improper purpose. This past term, the U.S. Supreme Court decided what showing a party must make to obtain an evidentiary hearing as to the propriety of a summons, concluding that the party must “plausibly rais[e] an inference of bad faith.” This article discusses the Court’s decision in United States v. Clarke and addresses the potentially significant questions that remain open.

]]>
<![CDATA[Did the Summer Shine Any Light on Dodd-Frank Whistleblower Land?]]> http://www.maglaw.com/newsletter/data/00590 http://www.maglaw.com/newsletter/data/00590 <![CDATA[Did the Summer Shine Any Light on Dodd-Frank Whistleblower Land?]]> http://www.maglaw.com/publications/blog-posts/did-the-summer-shine-any-light-on-dodd-frank-whistleblower-land http://www.maglaw.com/publications/blog-posts/did-the-summer-shine-any-light-on-dodd-frank-whistleblower-land The summer saw a significant new development in the Securities and Exchange Commission's (“SEC”) whistleblower bounty program but failed to see any development on obtaining clarification as to the reach of the Dodd-Frank Act's whistleblower protection provision. While the SEC was busy finalizing the first-ever award to an employee working in the area of compliance, the courts were intent on taking a break from dealing with whistleblowing employees, and their SEC amici, to achieve clarity on the issue of whether reporting internally, but not to the SEC, is sufficient to fall within the protections of the Dodd-Frank Act’s anti-retaliation provision. [...]

]]>
<![CDATA[Bank Secrecy Act Prosecutions: Why Few Individuals Are Charged]]> http://www.maglaw.com/newsletter/data/00589 http://www.maglaw.com/newsletter/data/00589 <![CDATA[Bank Secrecy Act Prosecutions: Why Few Individuals Are Charged]]> http://www.maglaw.com/publications/articles/00377 http://www.maglaw.com/publications/articles/00377 Following the 2007-08 financial crisis, government enforcement efforts have met with a recurring criticism – that individuals have not been held accountable for causing the unlawful conduct of institutions. This criticism has been directed at a series of high-profile prosecutions of banks for violations of the anti-money laundering requirements of the Bank Secrecy Act.

Below, we consider the relative scarcity of individual prosecutions in BSA cases and suggest that it lies in the nature of the criminal violations at issue, which focus chiefly on institutional failures to adopt adequate controls, and in the difficulties of investigating the extraterritorial conduct of global financial institutions. It is not surprising, in this light, that civil penalties have begun to receive heightened interest among enforcement authorities as a means of sanctioning and deterring individual misconduct—a development seen in other areas of white-collar enforcement since the financial crisis.

]]>
<![CDATA[When The Government Chases the Tail of the Dog]]> http://www.maglaw.com/publications/blog-posts/when-the-government-chases-the-tail-of-the-dog http://www.maglaw.com/publications/blog-posts/when-the-government-chases-the-tail-of-the-dog Two recent white-collar cases are examples of a phenomenon that one tends to find when the defense is able to emerge victorious: a case with some core facts that simply do not fit the pattern of wrongdoing expected in the popular conception. The phenomenon is that of the case that trails behind, and that is missing the characteristics that ultimately matter most: the tail, not the dog. [...]

]]>
<![CDATA[Shrinking Grounds for General Jurisdiction After 'Daimler']]> http://www.maglaw.com/publications/articles/00376 http://www.maglaw.com/publications/articles/00376 The Supreme Court’s recent decision in Daimler v. Bauman, coupled with its 2011 decision in Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations v. Brown, call into question whether certain long-held assumptions about the reach of CPLR 301—New York’s general jurisdiction statute—are consistent with due process. Daimler’s impact is already evident in decisions from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. We discuss below several of those recent decisions, which raise important questions about the scope of general jurisdiction in New York.

]]>
<![CDATA[Morvillo Abramowitz Named in <em>New York Law Journal's</em> 2014 Boutique and Practice Specific Law Firm Guide]]> http://www.maglaw.com/news/recognitions/00636 http://www.maglaw.com/news/recognitions/00636 Morvillo Abramowitz was selected to appear in the New York Law Journal’s 2014 Boutique and Practice Specific Law Firm Guide in the categories of Criminal Law, Commercial Litigation and Securities Law.

The New York Law Journal’s 2014 Boutique and Practice Specific Law Firm Guide was released on August 25, 2014.

]]>
<![CDATA[Be Careful Where You Whistle While You Work: Courts Impose Limits on Dodd-Frank's Protection for FCPA Whistleblowers]]> http://www.maglaw.com/publications/blog-posts/be-careful-where-you-whistle-while-you-work-courts-impose-limits-on-dodd-franks-protection-for-fcpa-whistleblowers http://www.maglaw.com/publications/blog-posts/be-careful-where-you-whistle-while-you-work-courts-impose-limits-on-dodd-franks-protection-for-fcpa-whistleblowers The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act was heralded as providing whistle-blowing employees protection from retaliation by their employers. In Liu v. Siemens AG, handed down last week, the Second Circuit limited the reach of the Act’s anti-retaliation protections to domestic whistleblowers. In doing so, the Court rejected a claim brought by a Taiwanese lawyer employed by a German corporation who disclosed suspected Foreign Corrupt Practice Act violations by the corporation’s Chinese subsidiary, finding that the relevant provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act did not apply “extraterritorially” [...]

]]>
<![CDATA[Stephen M. Juris Quoted in <em>Global Investigations Review</em>]]> http://www.maglaw.com/news/media-mentions/00599 http://www.maglaw.com/news/media-mentions/00599