X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Few people wielded more power in WorldCom, Inc.’s recent rehabilitation than Richard Breeden, the court-appointed corporate monitor. Though Breeden was the first to ever hold the post � created at the request of the Securities and Exchange Commission � he won’t be the last. The SEC and federal prosecutors have asked judges to appoint monitors at a growing number of companies plagued with executive fraud. While the duties of these overseers are still being defined, they’ve generally been charged with fact-finding and asset protection. Most of the post-WorldCom monitors have been been assigned to small, little-known companies. But this summer the U.S. attorney’s office in Brooklyn asked for a monitor at Symbol Technologies Inc., a Holtsville, New York � based company that makes bar code scanning devices. In June prosecutors indicted eight former Symbol executives, including ex � GC Leonard Goldner, on various fraud charges. The SEC also threatened to unleash Breeden as a monitor at Hollinger International this spring if its then chairman thwarted a special committee’s investigation at the Chicago-based newspaper group. Peter Bresnan, associate director of the SEC’s enforcement division, says that a monitor isn’t appropriate in every instance of corporate fraud. But he says that the government will continue to consider it “in unusual circumstances where management has demonstrated it can’t be trusted to act in the best interests of the investors.” Courts have long appointed a range of officials � trustees, examiners, investigators, receivers, special masters � to help sort out facts and handle finances when a company runs into trouble. According to Bresnan, a monitor is a “less drastic” approach than a receiver, and is charged with saving a company rather than liquidating it. The SEC and the U.S. Department of Justice usually ask for monitors in cases where they are already pursuing civil or criminal charges against a business. The federal judge hearing the government’s case has sole discretion over whether to appoint a monitor, whom to choose, and what that person’s duties will be. The monitor’s duties can range from protecting assets and records, to assisting government investigators, to reassuring financiers and customers about the company’s stability. Bresnan won’t say how the SEC developed the concept of the corporate monitor. But the agency was clearly influenced by the Enron Corp. scandal. Prior to filing for bankruptcy in December 2001, Enron executives shredded documents and took huge bonuses. When WorldCom announced seven months later that it had overstated past earnings in the biggest accounting fraud in American history, the SEC was determined to get involved sooner and in a more substantive way. “On day one [June 26, 2002], we filed the lawsuit against WorldCom, and on day two, we forged an agreement for a corporate monitor,” Bresnan says. He adds, “We wanted to react to some of our experiences in Enron. We wanted to make sure there was no document destruction in WorldCom and no excessive compensation paid to executives at the time.” In seeking a monitor, the SEC suggested three names to Manhattan federal judge Jed Rakoff, who was hearing the agency’s civil complaint against WorldCom. The candidates had been preapproved by the SEC and WorldCom, which had agreed to pay the monitor’s $800-an-hour fee. Rakoff chose Breeden, a former SEC chairman who now runs a private consulting business in Connecticut. Rakoff initially charged Breeden with preventing document destruction and last-minute compensation grabs � the SEC’s chief concerns. But Breeden says that as he came to understand what was needed to stabilize the company, his duties expanded. He approved all major financial decisions at WorldCom, and met with the company’s bankers and creditors. Breeden’s success at WorldCom has led the government to ask for corporate monitors in other federal criminal and civil cases. At the SEC’s request, a Washington, D.C., federal judge appointed Gregory Bruch in March 2003 to oversee U.S. Technologies Inc. Based in D.C., the company ran outsourcing programs for prison labor, and invested in small Internet businesses. In April 2004 former chief executive C. Gregory Earls was convicted on 22 counts of criminal fraud. Like Breeden, Bruch has SEC experience � he’s a former assistant director of the agency’s enforcement division. Bruch, now a partner at Foley & Lardner, and U.S. Technologies did not respond to requests for comment. But an SEC background isn’t required to become a monitor. In March 2004 a Manhattan federal judge named the New York firm of Getnick & Getnick to serve as the monitor for the New York Racing Association. Managing partner Neil Getnick says that his firm has previous experience serving as one of four “integrity monitors” hired by various federal agencies to oversee post � 9/11 recovery and cleanup operations at the World Trade Center. The NYRA, which oversees horse racing and betting in the state, and several former employees were indicted in late 2003 by Manhattan federal prosecutors in a tax scam. NYRA general counsel Patrick Kehoe declined to comment. A monitor doesn’t even have to be a lawyer. This April, a Fort Lauderdale federal judge removed the CEO of Spear & Jackson Inc. and appointed local accountant Soneet Kapila as the company’s monitor. Kapila notes that he has previously served as a court-appointed bankruptcy trustee. Spear & Jackson, headquartered in Boca Raton, Florida, is the U.S. subsidiary of a U.K. � based maker of household tools. The SEC claims that the company falsely reported various stock transactions, as well as the amount of stock owned by its former CEO. Spear & Jackson did not respond to requests for comment. The government has also decided that sometimes it can accomplish its goals with just the mere threat of a monitor. In January the SEC tapped Breeden in its civil action against Hollinger. Breeden serves as counsel to a special committee that has been investigating alleged misconduct at the company. The court’s order appointing Breeden contained what the SEC’s Bresnan called a “springing corporate monitor provision.” If Lord Conrad Black, then Hollinger’s chairman, interfered with the special committee’s work in any way, Breeden would automatically become a monitor. The threat worked, and Lord Black didn’t trigger the spring. Not surprisingly, some white-collar criminal defense lawyers argue that monitors have potential problems. Baker Botts partner Jay Alexander says employees may feel pressured to cooperate with any investigation endorsed by the monitor in order to keep their jobs. But the fact that the monitor is acting on behalf of the government “raises an interesting question” about whether the employee still enjoys his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, Alexander notes. And O’Melveny & Myers partner James Asperger thinks that appointing a monitor should depend on the level and extent of alleged misconduct at a company. Asperger believes that in cases involving only “rogue employees,” a monitor would be “overkill.” Breeden agrees that most companies will never have to worry about a corporate monitor, because they’ll never have the level of fraud that merits one. But he thinks the government will continue to favor the idea in extreme fraud cases, “because it works.”

This content has been archived. It is available exclusively through our partner LexisNexis®.

To view this content, please continue to Lexis Advance®.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber? Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® is now the exclusive third party online distributor of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® customers will be able to access and use ALM's content by subscribing to the LexisNexis® services via Lexis Advance®. This includes content from the National Law Journal®, The American Lawyer®, Law Technology News®, The New York Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.

ALM's content plays a significant role in your work and research, and now through this alliance LexisNexis® will bring you access to an even more comprehensive collection of legal content.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.