<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>The Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance</title>
	<atom:link href="https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2017/10/09/the-yates-memo-looking-for-individual-accountability-in-all-the-wrong-places/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu</link>
	<description>The leading online blog in the fields of corporate governance and financial regulation.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 22 Apr 2026 11:32:28 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.5.8</generator>

 
	<item>
		<title>The Yates Memo: Looking for &#8220;Individual Accountability&#8221; in All the Wrong Places</title>
		<link>https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2017/10/09/the-yates-memo-looking-for-individual-accountability-in-all-the-wrong-places/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=the-yates-memo-looking-for-individual-accountability-in-all-the-wrong-places</link>
		<comments>https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2017/10/09/the-yates-memo-looking-for-individual-accountability-in-all-the-wrong-places/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Oct 2017 13:02:00 +0000</pubDate>
<!-- 		<dc:creator><![CDATA[]]></dc:creator> -->
				<category><![CDATA[Academic Research]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Comparative Corporate Governance & Regulation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Securities Litigation & Enforcement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Securities Regulation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Accountability]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Attorney-client privilege]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Corporate fraud]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Corporate veil]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Deferred prosecution agreements]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[DOJ]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Liability standards]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Misconduct]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Securities enforcement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Yates memo]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/?p=101870?d=20171009090302EDT</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Department of Justice has received a great deal of criticism for its failure to prosecute both corporations and individuals involved in corporate fraud, especially those associated with the financial collapse in 2008. Companies were labeled “too big to fail” and it was difficult to determine the responsible individuals within the corporations. In an effort [&#8230;]]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<hgroup><em>Posted by Katrice Bridges Copeland, Penn State Law, on Monday, October 9, 2017 </em><div class='e_n' style='background:#F8F8F8;padding:10px;margin-top:5px;margin-bottom:10px;text-indent:2.5em;'><strong style='margin-left:-2.5em;'>Editor's Note: </strong> <p style="margin:0; display:inline;"><a href="https://pennstatelaw.psu.edu/faculty/copeland">Katrice Bridges Copeland</a> is Professor of Law at Penn State Law. This post is based on a recent <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3028823">article</a> by Professor Copeland.</p>
</div></hgroup><p>The Department of Justice has received a great deal of criticism for its failure to prosecute both corporations and individuals involved in corporate fraud, especially those associated with the financial collapse in 2008. Companies were labeled “too big to fail” and it was difficult to determine the responsible individuals within the corporations. In an effort to quiet some of that criticism, on September 9, 2015, then Deputy Attorney General Sally Q. Yates issued the latest installment of the Department of Justice’s charging guidelines. The policy, entitled, “Individual Accountability for Corporate Wrongdoing,” or the “Yates Memo,” as it has been called, does not focus on criminal charges against corporations. Instead, the focus is on prosecuting individuals within the corporate entity. The Yates Memo announces six steps to pursue individual corporate wrongdoing, but the main thrust of the Memo is that the Department of Justice should pursue individuals within the corporation from the outset of the investigation and that a corporation’s cooperation will be judged by whether the corporation provides all relevant information about culpable individuals. In other words, in order to receive any credit for cooperating with the government and obtain leniency in the form of a deferred prosecution agreement, the corporation must conduct an internal investigation and point the finger at culpable employees. The Yates Memo puts a particular emphasis on the need to hold high-level officials responsible for misconduct.</p>
<p> <a href="https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2017/10/09/the-yates-memo-looking-for-individual-accountability-in-all-the-wrong-places/#more-101870" class="more-link"><span aria-label="Continue reading The Yates Memo: Looking for &#8220;Individual Accountability&#8221; in All the Wrong Places">(more&hellip;)</span></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2017/10/09/the-yates-memo-looking-for-individual-accountability-in-all-the-wrong-places/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
