Police allege that Si had discovered several incidents of illegal activity performed by Truong and reported him to government officials. After Si made his reports, Truong allegedly hired Luan to harass Si in an attempt to have the former deputy withdraw his reports. After Si refused, Luan allegedly hired the five other men and attacked and killed Si.

The data was lost after the analyst’s home was robbed, but was later recovered by authorities. The analyst had taken the laptop home without clearance to do so.

The $20 million will be given in payments of $75 to $1,500 to veterans who can give clear evidence that they experienced emotional harm from the incident, or had expenses incurred from their stolen information.

If there is any money left over it will be donated to veterans-related charities.

The latest in a decade-old lawsuit, today’s ruling upheld the decision of a lower court that had to decide whether Taco Bell or TBWA was responsible for paying tens of millions of dollars in damages to Wrench, the ad firm that came up with the idea of “Psycho Chihuahua,” which later became the internationally-known Taco Bell Chihuahua.

A good description of the events leading up to the trial can be found in today’sappellate court’s decision. To sum it up, a licensing executive from Taco Bell approached Joseph Shields and Thomas Rinks, the founders of Wrench, after seeing the concept of Psycho Chihuahua at a trade show. He thought it would be a good fit for an upcoming Taco Bell ad campaign.

After price negotiations between Taco Bell and Wrench fell through, Taco Bell turned to their primary ad agency, TBWA, to create a mascot and theme for an upcoming $500 million ad campaign. Taco Bell gave TBWA materials related to Psycho Chihuahua to develop a similar idea for the campaign.

When Shields and Rinks saw the now famous “Yo Quiero Taco Bell” Chihuahua on TV in 1998, they quickly sued Taco Bell.

The two creators of Psycho Chihuahua won the suit and a $42 million judgment.

Taco Bell, after initially entering a “joint defense agreement” with TBWA, then sued the agency, asking for “full indemnification.” Because Taco Bell gave the Psycho Chihuahua materials to TBWA, the judge ruled that Taco Bell was fully liable for the $42 million in damages awarded to Wrench. Taco Bell appealed and lost again with today’s ruling.

Asked whether or not Taco Bell will appeal to a higher court, further dragging out this case, a company spokesperson said, “We just received the opinion today and are reviewing our options.”

WPP alleged that Benatti secretly took for his personal gain the majority of the proceeds from a £17 million takeover of an Italian advertising company. Benatti fired back, alleging that he was dismissed improperly. He claimed that he was let go because he “had fallen out” with the company’s COO in Italy, Daniela Weber, who was allegedly involved in a relationship with company chief executive, Sir Martin Sorrell (pictured). According to the story, after a five-day hearing, Benatti and WPP have reached a confidential settlement, thus ending the case.

Last year Sorrell also filed a libel suit against Benatti after Benatti allegedly distributed “a computer-generated image showing [Sorrell] with Ms Weber labeled ‘the mad dwarf and the nympho schizo.’” In that case, Benatti paid £120,000 to Sorrell, but didn’t admit liability.

The move, announced in a statement by Andrew Cuomo, the Attorney General for the state of New York, came after an undercover investigation of child pornography newsgroups. According to Cuomo, the investigation is still ongoing.

All three companies involved had something to say on the issue:

“Online child pornography represents one of the worst abuses of the Internet,” said Time Warner Cable Senior Vice President and Chief Ethics Officer Jeff Zimmerman. He said Time Warner Cable is removing newsgroups from its service.

“By shutting down offending newsgroups and contributing to funds that will combat child pornography online, we are working to remove this content permanently,” said Verizon Deputy General Counsel Tom Dailey.

“We are doing our part to deter the accessibility of such harmful content through the internet and we are providing monetary resources that will go toward the identification and removal of online child pornography,” said Sprint Senior Public Affairs Manager Matthew Sullivan. “We embrace this opportunity to build upon our own long-standing commitment to online child safety.”

You can read more about the story here.

With recent publicized stories of whistle-blowers making small fortunes for calling-out cartels, and after the success of German and British authorities paying informants for the names of people evading taxes through Liechtenstein bank accounts, the hope is that this new plan will encourage more employees to speak up about their companies’ illegal habits. According to the Independent:

Simon Williams, the OFT’s senior director of cartels and criminal enforcement, said: “We believe that it is in the public interest to offer financial incentives in the hope that it will encourage more people who have good information about the existence of hard-core cartel activity to come forward.”

Obviously, the information has to be good – whistleblowers will only get paid after a successful prosecution. The OFT has established a hotline (0800 085 1664) as well as an email address (cartelshotline@oft.gsi.gov.uk) that aspiring whistle-blowers can use to report bad behavior.

The trips typically lasted 14 days and cost between $25,000 and $55,000 each. The money came out of Lucent’s sales department and was falsely documented as “factory inspection” or “training” trips, but little to no time was actually spent in either regard. Although by 2001 Lucent had outsourced the vast majority of its work and had no factories for customers to tour, the company still paid for factory tours across the world to countries such as the United States, Europe, Japan, Australia, Canada, etc.

The Justice Department will not prosecute Lucent should the company agree to all the terms of the agreement. This includes the aforementioned fine, as well as adding stronger internal controls, maintain fair and accurate books and records, implement a new FCPA compliance program and, most importantly, stop bribing customers. In a separate but related settlement with the SEC, Lucent agreed to pay $1.5 million but neither admitted nor denied guilt. These decisions come from alleged violations committed before Alcatel bought out Lucent in 2006.

This verdict is something of a let down to those who really wanted to see Black suffer, as his prison sentence is less than a quarter of the over 30 year sentence that prosecution was seeking. However, if Black reports to jail by March 3 as ordered, he will be pushing 70 when he’s released.

So what should Black be doing to prepare for his six year sentence (assuming an appeal doesn’t go through)? David Novak, a former white-collar criminal who now is a consultant to corporate inmates, advises clients to “prepare for prison life by taping off a small area in their living room and restricting themselves to that.”

Three of Black’s co-defendants were given slightly easier punishments. Peter Atkinson, a former Hollinger lawyer, was given two years in prison followed by three years of supervised parole. John Boultbee, Hollinger’s ex CFO, was given just over two years in prison, three years of probation and over $150,000 in fines. Mark Kipnis, Hollinger’s former general counsel, has yet to be sentenced.

The money will be returned to United Health shareholders, who have so far recovered $900 million from former and current executives related to illegal backdating. The deal will have to be approved by a federal and a state judge before it’s completely finalized.

“I am very pleased to have reached a resolution that puts these matters to rest,” McGuire said in an official statement.

But, things aren’t quite over. The California Public Employees’ Retirement System is spearheading a shareholder lawsuit requesting that he lose access to his remaining 24 million shares, estimated to be worth about $800 million. The result of that case is expected sometime this week.

Originally, Stolt-Nielsen was given amnesty from prosecution for spilling the beans on a price fixing scheme between the three tanker companies and fully cooperating in the Department of Justice’s investigation. Later, “based on evidence from one of the others accused,” the DOJ revoked the amnesty and brought charges against the company. Stolt-Nielsen moved for dismissal, and Judge Bruce W. Kauffman from Pennsylvania agreed, saying:

“The [DOJ's antitrust] division has no reasonable basis upon which to void or revoke the agreement because it has not demonstrated any breach by Stolt-Nielsen or the individual defendants…Accordingly, the indictment will be dismissed.”

Mr. Stolt-Nielsen, obviously relieved, said in a statement, “We are pleased that justice has been served.” Now Stolt-Nielsen is not only the first company to have amnesty revoked by the DOJ, but it’s the first to have it reinstated as well.

As for the Department of Justice, they are fairly unhappy about the decision and plan to review their options. Whether or not they appeal this decision, their intent on hunting down and prosecuting cartels has been duly noted.

The Eight Members Club (which, in actuality, has about 800 members) is a private club that ensures “privacy and exclusivity” to its members so that “every detail of your time at eight is nothing short of perfection.” A spokesperson for the club denied firing Ms. Thomas because of her age, but rather because she was an unsatisfactory worker:

“It’s a very strange ruling because this is a young person’s business and many of the waiters and waitresses working here are the same age or even younger than Megan. She had finished her six months’ probation and had made some mistakes, so we decided to end her employment.”

Unfortunately for Ms. Thomas, landmark rulings don’t always equate to landmark fees and penalties. She’s expected to be compensated in the four digit range, however that number could possibly dip under the £1,000 mark. Not to worry, though, as she has already secured a higher paying job. As she puts it:

“I secured new employment on a higher salary of £25,000 on 7 August, 2007. I enjoy my new job where the employer treats me with respect and does not look down on me because of my age.”

For an amusing list of over-the-top purchases that Brooks bought with company money, see the official indictment brought against him. The purchases include, according to one report, an alleged $8 to $10 million to host his daughter’s bat mitzvah party, with special appearances by 50 Cent and Kenny G (a Google search of the event brought up a blog that posted pictures of the event).

DHB manufactures the Interceptor Vest, one of the most widely used pieces of body armer by U.S. Marines and other military personnel. During his reign over the company, Brooks allegedly spent over $200 million of company money for personal use. Stock prices were also artificially inflated to $20 per share in 2004, from $2 in 2003. In the ensuing fallout, the company’s reputation was obviously tarnished.

Although DHB had its share of problems over the past few years, including vest recalls and shareholder lawsuits, this must have been the last straw. The company recently relocated its headquarters from Westbury, NY to Pompano Beach, FL and changed its name to Point Blank Solutions. It also warned investors that previous financial statements could not be trusted.

Despite all the hardships, however, Point Blank spokespeople believe the company “remains the nation’s top armored vest manufacturer for the Iraq war.“

While it is not known how much oil was spilled into the ocean, or where exactly the spill took place, it has been reported that at one point the ship’s captain turned the vessel into the wind in order to clean the sludge from the side of the ship. He justified his actions by claiming it was a “man overboard” drill. He was fired, along with the ship’s chief engineer.

The crew member who blew the whistle on the Polar Tanker crime received half of the $500,000 fine as a reward. Not a bad way to encourage more employees to speak up about corporate bad guys. Although, as a story yesterday in the New York Times reminded all would-be whistle blowers: No, you don’t get anything for reporting your own crime.

The second fine this week was a tad heftier: $373 million dollars. The U.S. Department of Justice came down with a vengeance on BP (formerly British Petroleum) for a multitude of oil-related offenses, including two spills in Alaska in 2006. These spills accounted for $20 million of the total fine. Prosecutors argued that BP neglected corroding pipelines that resulted in the spills. The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation will get $4 million from this settlement.

In the late 90′s, a former employee blew the whistle on the company and cited “dangerously high levels of estrogen” in the Ortho Evra patch. Later, in 2005, the FDA announced that the patch exposed women to about 60 percent higher levels of estrogen than the average daily oral contraception pill. High levels of estrogen can result in strokes, blood clots and heart attacks – which, as a matter of fact, are the very reasons that 2,400 other women have sued J&J. Most complained of blood clots in the legs and lungs, according to one Bloomberg report.

Using the Freedom of Information Act, the Associated Press obtained information from the FDA revealing that women on the Ortho Evra patch are three times as likely to experience a blood clot or die compared to those using oral contraceptives. Although not admitting guilt, J&J has required signed confidentiality agreements from each of the plaintiffs in the settlements.

Many people, even after being helped, “could not select a climate change leader, and among those that could no winner emerged.” The study suggests this provides a unique opportunity to businesses as environmentally-minded consumers aren’t going anywhere, according to Simon Glynn, senior partner at Lippincott, which helped jointly conduct the survey.

Six categories of climate-change awareness are presented: Campaigners, Optimists, Followers, Confused, Unwilling and Rejecters.

A quick break-down of each group:

• Campaigners: Know the issue and are ready to make change but pessimistic about chances of success.
• Optimists: The same as campaigners, only optimistic about success.
• Followers: Ready to change, but their motivation is in looking good and fitting in.
• Confused: Open minded but not sure what to do.
• Unwilling: Accept the issue but are not personally prepared to make any changes.
• Rejecters: Reject the issue and are unprepared to make changes.

The study also suggests that market leaders are more often named by consumers for their climate-awareness (such as Tesco), as well as companies with a brand “halo” (such as Disney).

That leaves about 30 to 50 percent reserved for beef, 75 percent of which must be “diced.”

At the heart of the case is Campbell’s new “Chunky Fully Loaded” line of soups. Hormel believes that there is not enough beef in Campbell’s “Chunky Fully Loaded Beef Stew” to constitute being labeled stew. Although Campbell does print “soup” on the label of the can, Hormel believes that it’s hidden and not likely to be read. Apparently they fear that some consumers will think they’re eating stew when in reality they will in fact be eating soup.

Julie Craven, spokesperson for Hormel, had this to say:

“[The U.S. Department of Agriculture] has standards that determine what products can be labeled as ‘stew,’ and the Campbell Soup product does not meet this standard. This is important because consumers rely on food product labels to be accurate.”

Forty people were arrested, including Pedro Ripper, president of Cisco Brazil, and Carlos Carnevali, vice president of Cisco Latin America. Additionally, Brazilian authorities have contacted U.S. law enforcement agencies requesting arrest warrants for five more suspects in the United States.

Cisco released an official statement claiming full cooperation with the Brazilian authorities. They also note in the release that Cisco doesn’t conduct direct sales in the country, the company goes through various third parties instead.

On a related topic, Brazil has notoriously high taxes across the board. Although their ICMS tax (goods and services tax) is a state tax paid by businesses, it’s generally passed along to consumers as a sort of hidden sales tax. For example, one group estimates Brazilians pay 36 percent extra for pencils as a result of taxes, and 40 percent extra for toilet paper. This has led to a proclivity towards tax avoidance for some Brazilians, businesses included.

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) recommended a AUS$36 million fine against Visy, but not Pratt himself (the rationale being that Pratt owns the company and therefore will feel the punishment’s effects by association). Peter Jopling, counsel for ACCC, approved of the decision, as “only a large penalty will serve to mark the court’s disapproval of the cheating of the public constituted by the conduct of Visy.”

And a large fine it was, as the $36 million mark recommended by the ACCC is the biggest in the country’s history.

BUT…

Visy reportedly has over $3 billion in assets. Pratt himself has an estimated value of AUS$5.4 billion (or US$2.5 billion). Some reports predict the price fixing scheme potentially cost customers AUS$700 million. Arguing that this fine will impede large businesses from colluding in the future is not an easy sell.

Australian Prime Minister John Howard and Australian Treasurer Peter Costello were reportedly at each others’ throats over the decision. In 2005, the Australian government, led by Mr. Howard, took a bold stance and threatened jail time for those accused of price fixing. However, after Pratt’s announcement of guilt on Wednesday, Howard remained mum on the issue, leaving a none-too-pleased Costello the responsibility of sticking up for the government’s tough talk.

“My view and the Government’s view is that there should be a criminal offense in relation to serious cartel behavior,” Costello said after the ruling.

On top of the ACCC’s investigation, 1700 businesses who believe they have been cheated by the deal have joined together to file the country’s largest class action lawsuit ever against the two companies.

Smith & Nephew, a British company that makes artificial hips and knees, along with Biomet, Medtronic, Stryker and Zimmer, got a crash course reminder after the SEC announced a new investigation into whether or not the companies bribed European doctors to prescribe their products to orthopedic and spinal surgery patients.

Apparently, this is all part of a growing trend. According to a new survey, U.S. regulatory agencies (particularly the SEC) have been stepping up investigations into British businesses, adding new expenses and stress for companies on the other side of the Atlantic.

This news comes in the wake of a $311 million settlement by the “medical device industry” in September for similar allegations.

According to one report, LDK’s stock dropped by a quarter immediately after the accusations became public. Morgan Stanley, the company that underwrote LDK’s IPO, sent out something of a press release to inquiring minds:

“The CFO also thought that [the whistleblower, Charlie Situ] might have incorrectly classified scrap silicon as unusable raw material, whereas in fact scrap silicon accounts for more than 80 percent of the raw material needs at LDK.”

Since the announcement, LDK Solar has been downgraded by more than one financial firm.

Apparently, a savory tart, or smörgÃ¥stÃ¥rta, is quite popular in Sweden … popular enough to bribe the law, anyway.

Unfortunately, the officer never got near the tart; he was off work the day the trombonist delivered it. However, he was still slapped with a fine of eighty days’ wages for the incident.

Read the story from Swedish newspaper ‘The Local’.

Lynn Brewer is very well known in the world of corporate compliance and ethics. She is a founding member of Open Compliance and Ethics Group (OCEG) and has given speeches on at least five continents. She was even recognized by the Nobel Peace Center in a freedom of speech exhibition for her “bravery” as a whistleblower.

Her fame came from giving speeches about the internal failings of Enron. She claims she was an executive there before its collapse. However, according to USA Today, she was a researcher and even her former bosses weren’t considered “executives.”

“EddieLynn is a good nurse who is trying to claim she was a brain surgeon,” Tony Mends said, a former boss of Brewer.

The article describes several inconsistencies and exaggerations in her book, Confessions of an Enron Executive: A Whistleblower’s Story, as well. One alleged tall-tale is Brewer’s association with a Texas natural gas deal the company put together. Brewer claims she discovered bank fraud. Her former boss said that never happened.

According to the article, Brewer was fired from Enron after she was sent to London to conduct a one-week training session for the company, but instead rented a car and traveled around England with her husband for most of the week.

Read the entire article here.

Commentary: Enron fraud continues even after its collapse…

According to the San Jose Mercury News, the four defendants, all Ukrainian immigrants, recruited hundreds of elderly Vietnamese immigrants by offering free check-ups at a bogus clinic in Milpitas. The patients’ personal account information was then used to bill Medicare for tests and procedures that either never took place, or were unnecessary.

In addition to over $900,000 in fines, the sentences ranged from 200 hours of community service with three years probation to two years in prison. A fifth defendant who pleaded guilty is still awaiting sentencing.

Read the complete story here.

U.S. District Judge Terence Kern determined that the law contradicts federal workplace safety requirements established in the 1970 Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The suit was initially filed by Whirlpool Co in 2004. Later Williams Co. and ConocoPhillips joined the suit, however both Whirlpool and Williams eventually dropped out, leaving ConocoPhillips as the sole plaintiff.

Soon after the suit was filed, the National Rifle Association (NRA) spearheaded a protest against Conoco Phillips by urging members to boycott Conoco gas stations. Conoco Phillips responded by reminding the NRA that retail gas stations that sell Conoco gasoline are not owned by the company, and therefore the boycott is affecting innocent businesses.

Similar gun laws have passed in Alaska, Kansas, Kentucky and Minnesota. All were created after eight Oklahoma employees were fired by Weyerhauser Corp. in 2002 after leaving guns in their cars parked in company parking lots. Although an appeal is likely, similar suits are expected to be filed in those states following Kern’s decision.

The plaintiffs, shareholders of Charter Communications, allege that Scientific Atlanta and Motorola knowingly participated in a scheme with Charter to artificially inflate the company’s annual earnings. They assert that Charter purchased thousands of cable TV boxes from Scientific Atlanta and Motorola for a $20 premium on each unit. The two suppliers then used the extra money to purchase advertising through Charter, inflating the company’s revenue for the fourth quarter of 2000.

The current law states that third parties who merely “aided and abetted” in fraud are not susceptible to lawsuits. Stanley Grossman, an investment lawyer arguing for Stoneridge, must prove that Scientific Atlanta and Motorola were directly involved in the fraudulent activity.

Should Stoneridge Investment Partners ultimately win the case, the decision will effect accounting firms, lawyers, investment bankers and any third party vendor of a company involved in securities lawsuits. If the court rules in favor of the defendants, then shareholders in future security fraud cases will lose an avenue for recovering losses.

Most significantly, the decision will affect the outcome of a pending trial of Enron shareholders who are seeking $40 billion in damages from investment firms and banks associated with the company’s collapse.

Only eight of the nine Supreme Court Justices will preside during the hearings. Chief Justice John Roberts sold $50,000 of Cisco stock in order to participate in the case. Justice Stephen Breyer, who also holds stock in the company, recused himself.

Commentary: Many experts predict the ruling to go 5-3 in favor of the defendants. Alito, Kennedy, Roberts, Scalia and Thomas are all predicted to follow their usual ‘pro-business’ stance. Scalia, Kennedy and Thomas already voted with the majority back in 1994 (Central bank of Denver v. First Interstate Bank of Denver) in a 5-4 decision ruling against giving liability to third parties who aid and abet in fraudulent activity. If Breyer was participating in today’s case it’s widely believed he would join the majority as well.

If the court does in fact side with the defendants, it will further the already heavily established pro-business slant of the Roberts court.