Foreign Corrupt Practices Act

Stephen McBrady, a Washington, D.C.-based partner in the firm's Government Contracts Group talks with Compliance Week about new requirements for government contractors to disclose previous violations of labor and employment laws when submitting a bid. Under the proposed rules, contractors would need to obtain data about their sub-contractors. "That brings up a whole host of other issues," said McBrady. For example, it's not unusual for one company to have a sub-contractor that is its competitor on the next contract up for bid. That raises concerns about confidentiality. Among the other concerns, McBrady notes, "Is it reasonable to expect that a small business prime contractor will be able to analyze and collect the labor law compliance information from its large sub-contractor?"

Newly elected Crowell & Moring chair Angela B. Styles, partner and co-chair of the Government Contracts Group, is profiled by The National Law Journal. Styles discusses her childhood, past experience in both the federal government and private practice, and how she arrived at Crowell & Moring. When referring to the firm's visions for the firm's future, Styles notes that she plans "not growing for growth's sake," and hopes to strengthen practices such as cybersecurity and health care while maintaining the firm's government contracts, regulatory, and litigation reputation.  

Los Angeles-based White Collar & Regulatory Enforcement Group partner, Janet Levine, is featured as one of Global Investigations Review's 2015 Women in Investigations. This spotlight story highlights women from all over the globe that are making waves in the high-powered field of investigations. Levine touches on what she likes most about her role as chair of the firm's trial practice stating, "In investigations, sometimes discovering that things aren't as bad as feared and other times helping clients solve today's problems and prevent tomorrow's."

Newly-elected chair of Crowell & Moring, Angela B. Styles, is featured in The Washington Post's "Capital Business" section after assuming her new role. The article notes that Styles, who joined the firm in 2007, is the second woman to serve as chair in firm history. "I am honored to serve as chair of Crowell & Moring and to be part of a long tradition of firm leaders who have helped to build a truly unique firm over the past 35 years," Styles said.

The National Law Journal reports the news that Angela Styles, partner and co-chair of Crowell & Moring's Government Contracts Group, has been elected as the firm's new chair. Referring to her predecessor, Kent A. Gardiner, who stepped down due to term limits, Styles notes: "It's a pretty good foundation I have to start with. I'm sure I will change some things. But we're at such a good place right now, we just need to keep thinking forward," she said.

Stephen J. McBrady, a Washington, D.C.-based partner in Crowell & Moring's Government Contracts Group, discusses trends in government contracts litigation and their potential impacts. In particular, he notes that a recent Federal Circuit decision upholding the dismissal of an $80 billion overbilling suit against Sikorsky Aircraft Corp. may affect strategy for contractors and the government, as they can now potentially agree to toll the statute of limitations for the Contract Disputes Act, which establishes the procedures for handling claims related to federal government contracts. "Because the statute of limitations was jurisdictional, it could not be waived, or tolled my mutual agreement," McBrady said. "In that respect, Sikorsky is a game-changer."

Washington, D.C.-based partners, Terry Rea, of Crowell & Moring's Intellectual Property Group, and Keith J. Harrison, of the firm's Labor & Employment and Litigation groups, weigh in on two important cases in the life sciences arena. Harrison discusses Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.'s challenge of a California appellate decision that a generic-drug manufacturer can be held liable for failing to warn consumers of the side effects listed on the equivalent brand-name drug, which may potentially be taken up by the U.S. Supreme Court. "This is going to be a case that is going to further define the scope of federal preemption," Harrison said. Additionally, Rea talks about the Cuozzo Speed Technologies LLC suit, which argues that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board uses the incorrect standard during America Invents Act (AIA) proceedings, making it difficult for inventors to retain their patents. "Everybody is going to be very, very careful how they handle this [case]," Rea said of the suit, which may upend new IPR standards.

Janet Levine, a Los Angeles-based White Collar & Regulatory Enforcement Group partner, is featured as one of National Law Journal's "2014 Litigation Trailblazers & Pioneers." The article shines a light on Levine's white collar defense work and some of the extremely high-profile cases she has handled. When discussing her thoughts regarding the future of her area of focus, Levine explains that white collar is here to stay as, "It's part of our criminal justice system now to have fraud allegations dealt with in the criminal system."

Washington, D.C.-based White Collar & Regulatory Enforcement Group partner, Philip T. Inglima, speaks to Global Investigations Review regarding his experience with subpoenas being blocked by a judge, even when it appears that all the appropriate steps have been taken to avoid a waiver or broad disclosure of the privileged materials. "These types of subpoena requests are becoming routine now, so companies are having to be ever more careful in making disclosures or presenting evidence to the DOJ so as not to waive attorney-client privilege and work product protection," states Inglima. "Delivering limited presentations orally is one way of reducing the risk."

Washington, D.C.-based International Trade Group partner, Cari N. Stinebower, is quoted in New York Times cover story that offers in depth analysis on the workings of Russian President Vladimir Putin's inner circle and their financial transactions. In particular, the article notes that Bank Rossiya, an entity subject to U.S. sanctions, was created for what the Obama administrations calls the "personal bank" of the Putin inner circle. The article notes that this bank, like many others, is webbed into a shell of companies – but that the ownership structure for these companies is not readily identifiable. The lack of transparency into ownership structure says Stinebower, who advises clients on compliance with sanctions, raises "red flags" and corresponding enhanced due diligence requirements. Treasury has clarified that any entity 50 percent or more owned by a sanctioned person is also blocked by operation of law. With regard to CTC Media (CTC), a company with several television channels that was partially owned by a subsidiary of Bank Rossiya, Video International and an agreement CTC had with the subsidiary, Stinebower comments, "The way the law works, it's incumbent on CTC to understand the beneficial ownership of the company they are doing business with" to ensure that there is not "some sanctioned entity at the end of the chain." It has been reported that Video International was able to maneuver around Russian law and placed CTC at risk for violating American sanctions.

Los Angeles-based Antitrust Group partner and head of the firm's Los Angeles office, Jason C. Murray, spoke with The Recorder for a piece examining the increasing number of large firms working on opt-out antitrust cases. Antitrust lawyers say the appetite for opt-outs is growing because recent Supreme Court decisions, including Comcast v. Behrend, have made it more difficult and costly to reach class certification. Because of the risks involved with opting-out, firms conducting plaintiffs-side work are often asked to employ alternative billing arrangements. "Our [plaintiffs] antitrust recovery practice is a traditional plaintiffs practice," Murray said. "We share risk with our clients." Murray, who spends a majority of his time focusing on opt-out cases, attests that "it was really about being entrepreneurial," he said. "It was about finding ways to talk to clients about other opportunities."

Washington, D.C.-based Government Contracts Group attorneys, Angela B. Styles and Stephen J. McBrady, discuss how President Obama might soon issue an executive order making it tougher for corporations that move overseas for tax purposes to win federal contracts. "How hard they will make it to do business with the U.S. government is anyone's guess," Styles said. The order requires contractors to disclose violations of more than a dozen state and federal labor laws and regulations. McBrady added that, "As a result, contractors should review labor law compliance and current arbitration agreements, as well as submit comments on any proposed regulations."

Los Angeles-based Antitrust Group partner, Jason C. Murray, discusses a California federal judge's ruling that the National Collegiate Athletic Association's (NCAA) ban on paying elite football and men's basketball players broke antitrust laws could incite anti-competition suits from other divisions and sports teams in the NCAA. Murray argues that the decision could spur challenges under Title IX, which bars sex discrimination in athletics programs that receive federal funding. "That could be the next big issue in these cases, since the ruling could open up larger 'scholarship' opportunities for men than women athletes, raising the specter of unequal treatment under Title IX," said Murray.

Los Angeles-based White Collar & Regulatory Enforcement Group partner, Janet Levine, speaks to The Daily Journal about the Justice Department's recent announcement requesting federal law enforcement agents videotape their interrogations. "I think it takes away a defense tool, which was to attack the credibility of the agents through their failure to use modern equipment and statements that might be less than accurate," said Levine. "On the other hand, in some cases it keeps law enforcement in line from exaggerating what was said in a statement."

Government Contracts Group counsel Stephen McBrady discusses how over the past few years prosecutors have attempted to halt contractors' appeals before the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (ASBCA) because of alleged similarity to litigation taking place in district court. McBrady says, "when the government seeks to suspend contract claims pending the outcome of criminal or civil cases, the board, following Supreme Court's decision in Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 57 S. Ct. 163, 81 L. Ed. 153 (1936), requires the government to 'make out a clear case of hardship or inequity in being required to go forward'" if the stay may cause harm.

Washington, D.C.-based counsel and member of the firm's Government Contracts Group, Steve McBrady, discussses the recent decision released by the GAO that, acccording to the article, the Department of Veterans Affairs held misleading discussions because it failed to identify a critical quotation deficiency. McBrady says the case is, "a reminder to all contractors considering their protest options that simply because the agency characterizes an exchange (or in this case, numerous exchanges) as 'clarifications', that does not mean that GAO will necessarily agree."

New York-based partner Daniel Zelenko discusses what cases will be the ones to watch for in the coming year. Specifically, he says that both the DOJ and SEC will, "likely launch scores of new insider trading actions in the coming year." Continuing, he notes, "Insider trading cases are very appealing to prosecutors. They can be investigated quickly without a huge commitment of resources, and often the motives for the trading are very apparent to potential jurors."

Washington, D.C.-based International Trade Group attorneys Dan Cannistra and Josh Kallmer discuss how a government shutdown will impact U.S. trade policy, the Commerce Department, and other crucial agencies and facets involved in U.S. Trade.

Washington, D.C.-based attorneys partner Andy Liu and counsel Jonathan Cone, provide insight as to why government contractors sometimes have a tough decision on whether to settle a case or go to trial, and why it may have less to do with what side of the law the contractors are on, and more to do with cost-benefit analysis. The attorneys note, "investigative and legal costs alone can reach into the hundreds of thousands of dollars before a case even gets to trial. Plus, contractors can risk debarment or suspension." Liu explains, "attorneys always insist upon provisions in any settlement deal indicating that the client contractor denies the allegation that gave rise to the case."