Tag: Hughes Hubbard Reed

Categories
All Things Investigations

All Things Investigations: Yi-Chin Ho on HHR’s China Law Practice

Welcome to the Hughes Hubbard Anti-Corruption & Internal Investigations Practice Group’s podcast, All Things Investigation.

In this episode, Tom Fox is joined by Yi-Chin Ho, who is the head of the firm’s China Practice.

Yi-Chin Ho is a seasoned legal professional and co-chair of the China Practice at Hughes Hubbard Reed, with a strong foundation in cross-border legal practice.

Ho’s perspective on cross-border legal practice, deeply embedded in her varied experiences, is based on her belief in its critical role for business growth and development, even amidst political tensions between nations such as the US and China. She underlines the importance of the symbiotic relationship between countries, emphasizing their mutual dependency on each other’s goods, services, and expertise.

Ho, a trilingual, cross-cultural lawyer, believes in finding creative solutions and providing effective counsel to navigate through challenging situations in cross-border dealings. Her culturally diverse background and proficiency in Mandarin Chinese have been instrumental in bridging gaps and facilitating successful business transactions between different countries.

Key Highlights:

  • Cultural Nuances in Cross-Border Business Engagement
  •  Strategic Advisory for Cross-Border Disputes
  • Discovery Challenges in Cross-Border Investigations in China
  • Growing Preference for Chinese Arbitration Venues
  • Risk Assessment and Negotiation Strategies Guidance

Resources:

Hughes Hubbard & Reed website

Yi-Chin Ho

Categories
All Things Investigations

All Things Investigations: Constitutional Challenge to Corporate Transparency Act with Thomas Lee

Welcome to the Hughes Hubbard Anti-Corruption & Internal Investigations Practice Group’s podcast, All Things Investigation.

In this podcast, we’re joined by Hughes Hubbard Special Counsel, Thomas Lee, to discuss the recent decision declaring unconstitutional the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) in the case of NSBA vs. Yellen.

Thomas Lee specializes in appellate law and constitutional issues. With nearly a decade of tenure at the firm and an impressive 21 years of teaching constitutional law at Fordham Law School, Lee is highly respected in his field. Lee and the Hughes Hubbard team brought the lawsuit on behalf of the National Small Business Association, arguing the CTA was a constitutional overreach as it mandated the reporting of beneficial ownership data to combat money laundering and criminal activities.

The constitutional claims included no Congressional authority for this regulation, privacy concerns, and the lack of a foreign treaty ratified by Congress requiring the law. Drawing from his extensive background in constitutional law, they successfully argued that this federal regulation challenges traditional state regulation of entity formation and exceeds governmental power.

This decision in the National Small Business Association case is a landmark case that has now been appealed to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals and appears headed to the US Supreme Court.

Key Highlights:

  • Beneficial Ownership Reporting Requirements for Entities
  • Constitutional Challenges in Corporate Transparency Legislation
  • Court Proceedings of the Corporate Transparency Act
  • Efficient Negotiations and Potential Supreme Court Involvement

 Resources:

Hughes Hubbard & Reed website

Thomas Lee

Categories
All Things Investigations

All Things Investigations – Beyond the DPA: Maintaining an Effective Compliance Culture Post-Release

Welcome to the Hughes Hubbard Anti-Corruption & Internal Investigations Practice Group’s podcast, All Things Investigation. In this podcast, Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP partner Mike Huneke and I speak with Mei Li Zhen, Head of Ethics & Compliance, Commercial Operations & Subsidiaries, Airbus, about her role in the organization’s compliance department.

Mei Li Zhen and Michael Huneke are two accomplished professionals with extensive backgrounds in compliance programs and company culture, having both transitioned from external counsel to in-house counsel roles at Airbus. With her experience working with diverse international backgrounds, Zhen believes that a strong, company-wide, embraced compliance program is not just about avoiding fines but is a competitive advantage that attracts young talent and gains the trust of investors and governments. She sees integrity as beneficial for the bottom line and emphasizes the importance of everyone in the organization feeling responsible for behaving with integrity. Huneke, a US-qualified lawyer working in France, shares a similar perspective. He sees a strong compliance program as a self-reinforcing cycle that attracts the right talent and enhances the business’s reputation and reliability. Like Zhen, Huneke believes that compliance should permeate the entire company culture, with every employee feeling accountable for maintaining integrity in their daily activities.

Key Highlights:

  • Airbus’ Global Commitment to Compliance and Trust
  • Ethics Ambassadors Shaping Airbus Compliance Culture
  • Enhancing Team Trust through Transparent Communication
  • Establishing Trust Through Empathetic Communication Practices
  • Ethical Compliance Leadership in the Aerospace Industry

Resources:

Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP Website

Mei Li Zhen on LinkedIn

Categories
All Things Investigations

All Things Investigations: Episode 38 – CCO Certification – A Better Approach with Kevin Abikoff

In this episode of All Things Investigation, Tom Fox and guest Kevin Abikoff discuss the Department of Justice’s introduction of a CCO certification in the wake of FCPA violations. Kevin offers his unique perspective on this issue; their conversation also explores broader issues of corporate governance and the role of the Board of Directors.

Kevin Abikoff is a Partner and Deputy Chair at Hughes Hubbard & Reed. He is a recognized authority in corporate governance and compliance. 

You’ll hear Tom and Kevin discuss:

  • Kevin questions the necessity of the CCO certification, suggesting it addresses a problem that doesn’t exist, given the absence of complaints from the Department of Justice about dishonesty during monitorships.
  • A more practical approach, Kevin posits, is a certification 12 to 24 months after a monitorship ends to empower CCOs during periods of vulnerability truly.
  • Measuring compliance effectiveness is subjective and may be void of vagueness in a legal context.
  • In the broader realm of corporate governance, the board has a pivotal role in overseeing compliance. Parallels to the Caremark duty and Delaware law are drawn.
  • Kevin raises concerns about the burden on CCOs to assess program effectiveness retrospectively, especially considering the dynamic nature of compliance programs over time.
  • Boards should take responsibility for compliance certifications and should sign off on these certifications, mirroring similar practices in financial reporting.
  • Innovation within compliance may be stymied if CCOs fear that enhancing a program might be used against them in the future, Kevin points out.

KEY QUOTES:

“I’ve just never heard, especially from the context of Chief Compliance Officer, that the DOJ feels like they’re being lied to. If that’s not the problem they’re trying to solve, I think the solution they have paved is, again, a solution in search of a problem that doesn’t exist…” – Kevin Abikoff

“If you’re going to have a certification and you want to empower the chief compliance officer, have the certification twelve months, 24 months after the conclusion of the monitorship and have the CCO certify that they continue to believe that the policies, procedures, things that have been put in place, continue to be in place.” – Kevin Abikoff

“Now what you fail to investigate can kill you.” – Kevin Abikoff

Resources:

Hughes Hubbard & Reed website 

Kevin Abikoff on LinkedIn

Categories
All Things Investigations

All Things Investigations: Episode 33 – Trump January 6th Indictment with Kenyen Brown and Kevin Carroll

In this episode of All Things Investigations, host Tom Fox discusses the legal intricacies surrounding the Donald Trump indictments with legal experts Kenyen Brown and Kevin Carroll. Tearing apart the indictment against the former President, the conversation illuminates the reality of a country grappling with the unprecedented indictment of its former Commander-in-Chief. They dive deep into the evidence, the potential repercussions, and the broader implications for the legal profession and democracy itself.

Kevin Carroll and Kenyen Brown are partners at Hughes Hubbard & Reed. Kevin is a partner in the Washington, D.C. and New York offices of Hughes Hubbard & Reed in the White Collar & Regulatory Defense and Anti-Corruption & Internal Investigations practice groups. Former U.S. Attorney Kenyen Brown is a partner in the Washington, D.C. office of Hughes Hubbard & Reed in the White Collar & Regulatory Defense and Anti-Corruption & Internal Investigations practices.

 

You’ll hear Tom, Kenyen and Kevin discuss:

  • The indictment against Donald Trump centers around “prolific lies” used to defraud the United States citizens and election officials, aiming to overturn the 2020 election results. This has legal implications far beyond insurrection.
  • The evidence collected against Trump is expansive, including public statements, internal campaign emails, attorney-client privilege documents, voicemails, and audio recordings.
  • There’s potential for more evidence that can prove the charges brought against Trump, as the indictment itself was written in plain English, suggesting transparency and inclusivity for all concerned citizens.
  • The indictments were carefully formulated to avoid charges of sedition or insurrection, focusing instead on a set of charges that come with very serious sentences.
  • Some of the unindicted conspirators may potentially flip on Trump and provide crucial testimony against the former president. However, the roles of distinguished members of the legal profession in the alleged coup d’etat raise concerns about ethics training and professional discipline at the bar.
  • The likely trial date for this case is expected to be around six to ten months in the future, depending on the course of pretrial motion practice and the scope of the issues being relitigated.
  • The upcoming trial could potentially be the most important in American history, hence all counsel should be given adequate time to prepare.
  • Kevin explains that the oath to the Constitution, not to the Commander-in-Chief, holds deep importance for him and his peers. This oath suggests that the co-equal branches of the government, including the federal judiciary and Congress, deserve equal loyalty.
  • The troubling presence of veterans and a small number of active-duty personnel at the January 6 riot, was deeply disappointing to Kevin. 
  • Kenyen says, as a prosecutor, it is a great honor to represent the United States of America. He emphasizes the weight of the responsibility and the seriousness with which he took his duties of candor and good stewardship of information.
  • The fact that the National Guard was not deployed to aid the Capitol police during the riot, given that only the president can order their deployment in the District of Columbia, suggests that this decision was part of an attempt to pressure Congress and Vice President Mike Pence. President Trump may find it difficult to convince the public of the legitimacy of his actions.

 

Resources

Hughes Hubbard & Reed website

Kevin Carroll on LinkedIn

Kenyen Brown on LinkedIn