You are here: Home / Archives for wilmer cutler pickering hale and dorr

$16 Million Settlement Comes as Report Predicts Uptick in FCPA Actions | Law.com

July 20, 2011 By Leave a Comment

After years of explosive growth in the number of Foreign Corrupt Practices Act enforcement actions, the pace looks to have fallen off in the first half of 2011. But don’t expect the slowdown to last.

The Department of Justice on Wednesday announced a non-prosecution agreement with Florida-based Armor Holdings Inc. in which the company admitted to funneling bribes to a United Nations official to secure contracts to supply body armor to U.N. peacekeepers. As part of the agreement, Armor will pay more than $10 million in fines to the DOJ and $5.7 million in disgorgement and penalties to the SEC. A former Armor Holdings employee, Richard Bistrong, pleaded guilty in 2009 to related charges.

The bribery scheme predates Armor Holding’s 2007 sale to London-based BAE Systems Plc. BAE Systems faced its own bribery scandal, paying almost $450 million in fines and penalties to British and U.S. regulators in 2010 to resolve foreign bribery allegations spanning the Atlantic.

Counsel for Armor Holdings, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr partner Roger Witten, declined to comment. A spokesperson for BAE Systems did not return a call seeking comment.

Also on Wednesday, the DOJ indicted a different Florida company, Cinergy Telecommunications, and three of its employees, in an ongoing bribery case against Miami-based telecom companies charged with making $1 million in illegal payments to Haitian government officials. Two defendants in a related case are scheduled to be tried this week in Miami federal court.

The announcements suggest this year’s lull in new enforcement actions is coming to an end. As of June 30, the DOJ brought just 8 actions and the SEC brought just 9, compared to 48 and 26, respectively, in all of 2010, according to Gibson Dunn & Crutcher’s newly released midyear FCPA update. (Read the report here.)

via $16 Million Settlement Comes as Report Predicts Uptick in FCPA Actions.

Filed Under: From The News Tagged With: , , , , , , , , ,

Law.com – Patent Litigation Survey 2010: An Unexpected Turn

October 23, 2010 By Leave a Comment

Judging by the results of the 2010 edition of our annual Patent Litigation Survey, you might not guess that the number of patent suits filed in federal court fell last year. According to PricewaterhouseCoopers, though, that’s just what happened: The number of new infringement claims brought in 2009 was down by 6 percent, compared to the 2008 total.

But while there may have been less litigation work to go around overall, there was certainly plenty to keep the top law firms in our rankings busy. Consider Fish & Richardson, which snagged the top spot on our overall list again. In 2008 Fish handled a combined total (plaintiffs plus defense) of 77 cases. In 2009, the firm’s total shot up to 99 cases — a 29 percent increase. Second-place finisher Kirkland & Ellis saw its docket surge from 57 cases in 2008 to 72 in 2009, a 26 percent jump.

All five of the top firms on the overall list — Jones Day, Quinn Emanuel, Urquhart & Sullivan, and Howrey are the others — benefited from one patent litigation trend that just won’t quit: the ongoing flood of suits filed by nonpracticing entities (NPEs), or “patent trolls.” In fact, for several of the top firms, defending against NPEs accounted for more than half of their overall caseload.

But while NPEs are responsible for many patent suits, disputes between competing companies — which tend to drag on longer and generate more in fees than “troll” suits — still make up the core of many top firms’ litigation business. The smartphone wars that flared up this year between Apple Inc. and rivals like Nokia Corp. and HTC Corp., for example, may ultimately produce more fees for the firms representing them (Kirkland & Ellis and Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, among others) than many patent troll cases combined.

via Law.com – Patent Litigation Survey 2010: An Unexpected Turn.

Filed Under: From The News Tagged With: , , , , , , , , ,

HP Bribery Case Throws Spotlight on Enforcement – Butler University News

May 21, 2010 By Leave a Comment

The fact San Francisco now has a dedicated FCPA unit could be a wake-up call for major companies based in the region, particularly in Silicon Valley.

“I think it’s a clear indication of the deep commitment of the commission’s desire to continue to aggressively enforce the FCPA,” said Patrick T. Murphy, former SEC San Francisco branch chief and counsel at Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr in Palo Alto. “In particular, it indicates a clear focus on Asia by putting a specialized unit in the San Francisco office.”

One defense attorney, who advises clients on FCPA matters but did not want to speak on the record, said that because there hasn’t been a “high-profile” Silicon Valley FCPA prosecution by either the SEC or the DOJ, some companies there have not made themselves as familiar with the law as they should.

Robert W. Tarun, a Baker & McKenzie partner in San Francisco who handles FCPA cases and just published a book about the law, agreed.

He said that when he spoke about the FCPA in San Francisco five years ago and mentioned Transparency International, an organization that tracks corruption across the world, “only 5 hands out of 100 went up” in recognition. At a conference he gave in Texas, “the energy belt,” he said 95 percent of the hands went up.

Mike Koehler, a Butler University assistant professor of law and FCPA expert, said the types of companies typically located in Silicon Valley – technology companies – have a “lower risk profile” than companies that sell fighter jets or extract oil and gas.

“It matters who your customers are,” Koehler pointed out, explaining that oil companies and defense companies typically sell to governments, which puts them right in the line of sight for FCPA enforcement.

Technology companies like HP may sell to the government too, but those contracts make up a smaller “percentage of their customer base,” Koehler said. In fact, according to reports, the alleged bribe that triggered an investigation into HP, first by Russian and German authorities and now by U.S. authorities, was made to secure a contract to sell computer gear to the office of the prosecutor general of the Russian Federation.

via HP Bribery Case Throws Spotlight on Enforcement – Butler University News.

Filed Under: From The News Tagged With: , , , , , , , , ,

Wilmer Opening Business Center in Ohio for Back-Office Functions | National Law Journal

April 29, 2010 By Leave a Comment

Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr will move back-office functions to Dayton, Ohio, in September. The center is expected to house as many as 190 workers in technical support, billing support, conflict checks, data entry, finance and other business and administrative functions.

No lawyers will be located at the new business center at first, but the firm plans to add some basic document-review attorneys down the road, said co-managing partner William J. Perlstein. The new setup will add efficiency and cost less than housing business services in pricey offices in major cities, he said.

At present the firm divides back-office functions between its Washington, New York and Boston offices.

“As we addressed the question of trying to consolidate, that freed us up to look outside the metro areas, where space is less expensive and we can get a business campus setting,” Perlstein said. “It’s a combination of cost savings and the efficiency of having everyone in one location.”

The firm is still securing space for the new business center, and its not yet clear how much money it will save with the move, Perlstein said.

Wilmer is not the first firm to establish an off-site business center in a lower-cost area. Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe established its global operations center in Wheeling, W.Va., in 2000. The facility now houses about 200 workers.

via Law.com – Wilmer Opening Business Center in Ohio for Back-Office Functions.

Filed Under: From The News Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

High Court Ruling May Fuel Battle Over Class Arbitration | National Law Journal

April 28, 2010 By Leave a Comment

The U.S. Supreme Court likely ignited an intense battle in state and federal courts with its decision Tuesday that class arbitration may not be imposed on parties who have not agreed to it.

“The sword of Damocles is hanging over class arbitration now,” said F. Paul Bland of Public Justice, a Washington-based public interest law firm. “I think you are about to see a huge battle begin for what the implications of the case are. Consumer and employee advocates are going to take a view very, very different from what you’re going to see from the defense bar.”

Bland predicted that “within a week” defendants in more than 100 class action arbitration cases will seek supplemental briefing to argue that all state laws that have been used to strike down bans on class arbitrations are now pre-empted by the high court’s ruling in Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. AnimalFeeds International Corp.

“We have already received notice in one of our cases that the defendant wants supplemental briefing to make that argument,” said Bland, who filed an amicus brief on behalf of Public Justice and Public Good in the high court case, supporting AnimalFeeds.

Seth Waxman, a Washington partner at Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, argued the case on behalf of Stolt-Nielsen and other shipping companies. Nina Pillard of Georgetown University Law Center represented AnimalFeeds before the justices.

Hugh Verrier, the White & Case chairman and counsel to Stolt-Nielsen, said the ruling’s impact will be felt in future antitrust arbitration cases as well as in other areas of the law.

“Class arbitration is one of the most hotly contested legal issues of the new decade,” said Verrier in a statement. “This decision is another cutting-edge legal victory by our antitrust group.”

A number of potential class arbitrations are now under way and could be affected by the decision, said Archis Parasharami, co-chairman of Mayer Brown‘s consumer litigation and class action practice. “In an amicus brief we filed with the Court, we pointed out that, in most of those cases, the defendant was referred to a potential class arbitration despite the fact that the arbitration agreement did not expressly authorize, or in some cases expressly precluded, class arbitration,” said Parasharami, whose firm’s amicus brief on behalf of CTIA-The Wireless Association supported Stolt-Nielsen. “Defendants in those cases now have a compelling argument that the class arbitrations to which they have been subjected are ultra vires.”

via Law.com – High Court Ruling May Fuel Battle Over Class Arbitration.

Filed Under: From The News Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,