Sunday, April 10, 2005
The Buffalo Criminal Law Review has a new issue devoted to white collar crime scholarship. To start the discussion of this new scholarship it seems most appropriate to note the piece by my co-blogger, Peter Henning. Peter's piece on the Sarbanes-Oxley Act is titled, "Sarbanes Oxley Act Section 307 and Corporate Counsel: Who Better to Prevent Corporate Crime?" The article's cite is 8 Buffalo Crim. L. Rev. 101 (2004) and you can download the article from SSRN at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=642561
The abstract of the article is also available at that site, but to give a highlight.....
"The flaw in the SEC's proposed rule was that it coupled "noisy" with "withdrawal." Lawyers are not "gatekeepers" in the same way accountants have a duty to the investing public to ensure that a company conveys accurate information. . . .The Article argues that the SEC should adopt the withdrawal portion of the noisy withdrawal rule, and that withdrawal should be mandatory for both outside counsel and in-house lawyers when they become aware of corporate misconduct and the corporation refuses to take adequate remedial measures. . . ."
The rest of the articles in Vol. 8, No. 1, are as follows:
Sara Sun Beale & Adam G. Safwat, What Developments in Western Europe Tell Us about American Critiques of Corporate Criminal Liability
Katheen F. Brickey, Enron's Legacy
Pamela H. Bucy, "Carrots and Sticks": Post-Enron Regulatory Initiatives
Stuart P. Green, The Concept of White Collar Crime in Law and Legal Theory
Roland Hefendehl, Enron, WorldCom, and the Consequences: Business Criminal Law Between Doctrinal Requirements and the Hopes of Crime Policy
Geraldine Szott Moohr, Prosecutorial Power in an Adversarial System: Lessons from Current White Collar Cases and the Inquisitorial Model
Bernd Schünemann, The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002: A German Perspective