Every in-house counsel with responsibility for government investigations and enforcement matters knows that an indictment is a company's worst outcome — and nightmare. Yes, there may be an occasional case when the only way to properly defend a company's institutional interests is to risk indictment and fight to the death at trial. But those instances are, in reality, extremely rare, even though as advocates we may wish for the opportunity to challenge the government's evidence and rebut allegations in an adversarial court proceeding.
More often than not — and by strong measure — a company is best served by seeking a resolution in an enforcement case that avoids all the adverse consequences that an indictment brings, not the least of which is the risk of conviction. Often, one way to pursue the best possible resolution is to cooperate with a government investigation. But what does cooperation actually entail and does it mean capitulating to the government's allegations or suspicions?
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
