Mr. Davidson represents individuals and organizations under investigation by federal and state agencies such as the Department of Justice, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and the Office of the Inspector General. He also practices general commercial litigation, including securities class actions and contract disputes.
Stay Connected with Simon Davidson»Late last month the Supreme Court narrowed the scope of the controversial "honest services" fraud statute. See Skilling v. United States, No. 08-1394 (U.S., June 24, 2010). The latest Question of Ethics tackles the impact of the high court's ruling.
Suppose the Office of Congressional Ethics requests documents from your company. The Office cannot force you to comply. But, should you do so anyway? One issue to consider is whether your documents will remain confidential. See the June 8 edition of A Question of Ethics for answers.
There has been a lot of buzz lately about the use of federal job offers to lure candidates out of primary elections. Are these offers legal? The latest A Question of Ethics tackles that question.
As campaign season gears up, Congressional staffers should be mindful of rules restricting their work on campaigns. For one, staffers may not use official resources for campaign purposes. The latest Question of Ethics addresses this prohibition in the context of preparing an invite list for a campaign fundraiser.
False statements to government officials can lead to serious trouble. That's one of several lessons the latest Question of Ethics takes away from a February House ethics committee report regarding its investigation of privately sponsored trips to the Carribbean taken by Charlie Rangel and several other Representatives.
More than two years have passed since Congress enacted legislation requiring all businesses with in-house lobbyists to comply with the Congressional gift rules. Yet, many businesses are still unsure about how to comply with these rules, which were not originally designed to apply to anyone outside Congress. What can businesses do to comply? The latest Question of Ethics has some answers.
Beware businesses that file lobbying disclosure forms. Roll Call’s Alex Knott writes that many businesses are still making a common mistake when calculating the lobbying expenses disclosed on their forms.
Line 13 of Form LD-2 requires businesses with in-house lobbyists to disclose their quarterly lobbying expenses. Some businesses have taken this to mean only their in-house lobbying expenses, and not amounts paid to outside lobbyists. They have presumed that outside lobbyists are already disclosing their expenses on their own reports.
But, official guidance from the House and Senate rejects this approach. It says that businesses must disclose “all of their expenses incurred in connection with lobbying activities, including all payments to retained lobby firms or outside entities, without considering whether any particular payee has a separate obligation to register and report under the LDA.”
Knott cites a CQ Moneyline study that concluded that errors have resulted in underreporting of at least $338 million in lobbying expenses over the past 12 years. In some cases, Knott says, the errors were attributed to accounting not coordinating closely enough with counsel.
Whatever the cause of the errors, businesses should take care not to make them. Penalties for false disclosure forms can be stiff, with civil fines as high as $200,000 and criminal penalties including up to five years in jail.
Add this blog to your feeds or subscribe by email using the form below.
The Government, Regulatory and Criminal Investigations Department of McGuireWoods LLP launched the Subject to Inquiry blog in 2010. The blog, which features attorneys from the firm's GRCI Department, takes a look at topics, trends and cases in our industry that may be of interest to our clients or those following these aspects of the law addressed in the blog.
