On-Demand   On-Demand Web Programs

Internal Investigations 2017

Released on: Jun. 26, 2017
Running Time: 05:59:16

Knowing how to conduct efficient and effective internal investigations is key to protecting your clients or company. Companies and their counsel need to be diligent and proactive in identifying risks and remedying potential issues. In this program, an expert faculty will review the fundamentals of conducting an effective and efficient investigation using a real-world hypothetical with a graphic novel illustration to bring the characters to life.  Leave the program with a better understanding of how to handle investigations successfully for your clients or company.

You will learn:

  • Considerations at the outset: nature and scope of the investigation
  • Document retention and data privacy issues
  • The intersection of labor and employment law and internal investigations
  • When and how to work with outside experts
  • When you should disclose and when you should not
  • The government’s use, evaluation and weighing of internal investigations
  • Concluding the investigation: when to prepare a report and how, corrective actions, cooperation with the government

 Special Features:

  • Real-world hypothetical scenario with graphic novel illustration to structure program
  • Earn one hour of Ethics credit

This program is a must-attend event for anyone responsible for corporate investigations: inside and outside counsel, internal auditors, compliance officers, forensic accountants and other experts who handle internal investigations, and government attorneys — anyone who has a stake in this process.

Lecture Topics [Total time 05:59:16]

Segments with an asterisk (*) are available only with the purchase of the entire program.


  • Opening Remarks and Introduction* [00:03:28]
    Nancy Kestenbaum, Richard J. Morvillo
  • Commencing the Internal Investigation: Considerations at the Outset [01:37:17]
    Nicole W. Friedlander, Amy K. Carpenter-Holmes, MaryJeanette Dee, Daniel Nathan
  • Conducting the Internal Investigation [01:31:40]
    Richard J. Morvillo, Michael Delikat, Christina B. Dugger, Thomas A. Hanusik
  • Concluding the Internal Investigation [01:16:10]
    Martine M. Beamon, David B. Anders, Katherine M. Choo, Arlo Devlin-Brown
  • Internal Investigations: Regulators Roundtable [01:30:40]
    Joan Loughnane, Nancy Kestenbaum, Scott W. Friestad, Theodore V. Wells, Jr.

The purchase price of this Web Program includes the following articles from the Course Handbook available online:


  • COMPLETE COURSE HANDBOOK
  • Internal Investigations Do’s and Don’ts: Eleven Lessons from Real World Cases
    Steven R. Peikin
  • David B. Anders and Carol Miller, PLI Internal Investigations 2017 (Substantive Outline)
    David B. Anders
  • Daniel Nathan, Jason Somensatto and Jorge Pesok, Internal Investigations: Defining the Government’s Role
    Daniel Nathan
  • Michael Levy, Amy Carpenter-Holmes and Michael Spafford, Paul Hastings LLP, PH Perspectives, Neither a Whitewash nor a Witch-Hunt Be: Reclaiming the Independence of Internal Investigations
    Amy K. Carpenter-Holmes
  • U.S. Department of Justice’s Compliance Program Evaluation Factors: Impact on Internal Investigations
    John C. Kocoras
  • Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs, U.S. Department of Justice Criminal Division, Fraud Section
    John C. Kocoras
  • Michael Delikat and Renee Phillips, Ch. 11: Internal Investigations, Practising Law Institute, Corporate Whistleblowing in the Sarbanes-Oxley/Dodd Frank Era (2nd Edition) (September 2016)
    Michael Delikat
  • Recent Whistleblower Law Developments: Orrick’s Whistleblowing Blog
    Michael Delikat
  • Crowell & Moring LLP, Crisis Handbook: A Desktop Survival Guide for In-House Counsel
    Thomas A. Hanusik
  • Mark D. Pollack, Emily L. Seymore and Michael C. Whalen, Conducting Effective Internal Investigations: Practice Pointers and Privilege Considerations
    Amy K. Carpenter-Holmes
  • Tammy Albarrán and Samantha Choe, Internal Investigations: Concluding an Investigation (March 10, 2017)
    Tammy Albarrán
  • Corporate Cons in the 21st Century: Dealing with the Global Employee Fraud Epidemic (March 22, 2017)
    Anthony F. Fata, Corey M. Martens
  • Lanny A. Breuer and Mark T. Finucane, DOJ ‘Deconfliction’ Requests: Considerations and Concerns, Law 360 (March 1, 2017)
    Nancy Kestenbaum
  • Covington & Burling LLP, Client Alert, Fraud Section Guidance Highlights Factors Considered in Evaluating Corporate Compliance Programs (March 2, 2017)
    Nancy Kestenbaum
  • Enforcement Manual, Securities and Exchange Commission Division of Enforcement, Office of Chief Counsel (October 28, 2016)
    Steven S. Scholes

Presentation Material

  • Hypothetical - Cast of Characters
  • Hypothetical - Narrative
Co-Chair(s)
Nancy Kestenbaum ~ Covington & Burling LLP
Richard J. Morvillo ~ Morvillo LLP
Speaker(s)
David B. Anders ~ Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz
Martine M. Beamon ~ Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP
Amy K. Carpenter-Holmes ~ Paul Hastings LLP
Katherine M. Choo ~ Chief Investigative & Anti-Corruption Counsel, General Electric Company
MaryJeanette Dee ~ Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
Michael Delikat ~ Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP
Arlo Devlin-Brown ~ Covington & Burling LLP
Christina B. Dugger ~ Managing Director, Associate General Counsel , JPMorgan Chase & Co.
Nicole W. Friedlander ~ Sullivan & Cromwell LLP
Scott W. Friestad ~ Associate Director, Enforcement, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
Thomas A. Hanusik ~ Crowell & Moring
Joan Loughnane ~ Acting Deputy U.S. Attorney, United States Attorney's Office, Southern District of New York
Daniel Nathan ~ Morvillo LLP
Theodore V. Wells Jr. ~ Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP
General credit information about this format appears below. For credit information specific to this program, please choose your jurisdiction(s) in the Credit Information box on the right-hand side of this page.

PLI’s live and on-demand webcasts are single-user license products intended for an individual registrant only. Credit will be issued only to the individual registered.


U.S. MCLE States

Alabama:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of online programs per reporting period.

Alaska:  All PLI products can fulfill Alaska’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Arizona:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “interactive CLE” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via interactive CLE programs.

Arkansas:  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for Arkansas CLE credit.

California:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “participatory” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via participatory programs.

Colorado:  All PLI products can fulfill Colorado’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Connecticut: Effective January 1, 2017, all PLI products can fulfill Connecticut’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Delaware:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “eCLE” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of eCLE per reporting period, no more than 6 of which may be audio-only.

Florida:  All PLI products can fulfill Florida’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Georgia:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “in-house” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 in-house credits per reporting period.

Hawaii:  All PLI products can fulfill Hawaii’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Idaho:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Illinois:  All PLI products can fulfill Illinois' CLE requirements for experienced attorneys. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Indiana:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance education” credit. Attorneys are limited to 9 credits of distance education per reporting period.

Iowa:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “unmoderated” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of unmoderated programs per reporting period.

Kansas:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “prerecorded” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of prerecorded programs per reporting period.

Kentucky:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “non-live” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 non-live credits per reporting period.

Louisiana:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 4 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Maine:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 5.5 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Minnesota:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 on-demand credits per reporting period.

Mississippi:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of distance learning per reporting period.

Missouri:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Montana:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 5 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Nebraska:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “computer-based learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 5 credits of computer-based learning per reporting period.

Nevada:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via self-study programs.

New Hampshire:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of self-study per reporting period.

New Jersey:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “alternative verifiable learning formats” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of alternative verifiable learning formats per reporting period.

New Mexico:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 4 credits of self-study per reporting period.

New York

Experienced Attorneys:  All PLI products can fulfill New York’s CLE requirements for experienced attorneys. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Newly Admitted Attorneys:  PLI’s transitional on-demand web programs can be used to fulfill the requirements for New York newly admitted attorneys. Only professional practice and law practice management credits may be earned via transitional on-demand web programs. Ethics and skills credits may not be earned via on-demand web programs.

North Carolina:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of online programs per reporting period.

North Dakota:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Ohio:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Oklahoma:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online, on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of online, on-demand programs per reporting period.

Oregon:  All PLI products can fulfill Oregon’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Pennsylvania:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of distance learning per reporting period.

Puerto Rico:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “non-traditional” credit. Attorneys are limited to 8 credits of non-traditional programs per reporting period.

Rhode Island:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 3 on-demand credits per reporting period.

South Carolina:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “alternatively delivered” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of alternatively delivered programs per reporting period.

Tennessee:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 8 credits of distance learning per reporting period.

Texas:  All PLI products can fulfill Texas’ CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Utah:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Vermont:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 10 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Virgin Islands:  All PLI products can fulfill the Virgin Islands’ CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Virginia:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “pre-recorded” credit. Attorneys are limited to 8 credits of pre-recorded programs per reporting period.

Washington:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “A/V” credit. Attorneys are limited to 22.5 credits of A/V programs per reporting period.

West Virginia:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of online instruction per reporting period.

Wisconsin:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “repeated, on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 credits of repeated, on-demand programs per reporting period. No ethics credits can be earned via on-demand web programs.

Wyoming:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of self-study per reporting period.


CPD Jurisdictions

British Columbia (CPD-BC):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not eligible for CPD-BC credit unless viewed with at least one other attorney or an articled student. In this case, the credit must be recorded as a “study group.”

Ontario (CPD-ON):  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “recorded” credit. If viewed without a colleague, attorneys are limited to 6 credits of recorded programs per year. If viewed with at least one colleague, there is no limit to the number of credits that can be earned via recorded programs.

Quebec (CPD-QC):  PLI’s on-demand web programs can fulfill Quebec’s CPD requirements.

Hong Kong (CPD-HK):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for CPD-HK credit.

United Kingdom (CPD-UK):  PLI’s on-demand web programs can fulfill the United Kingdom’s CPD requirements.

Australia (CPD-AUS):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill Australia’s CPD requirements. Credit limits for on-demand web programs vary according to jurisdiction. Please refer to your jurisdiction’s CPD information page for specifics.


Other Credit Types

CPE Credit (NASBA):  Select on-demand web programs qualify as “QAS Self-Study” credit. Please check the Credit Information box on the right-hand side of this page to verify CPE credit availability.

IRS Continuing Education (IRS-CE):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill IRS-CE requirements. To request IRS-CE credit, please notify PLI at plicredits@pli.edu of your request and include your Preparer Tax Identification Number (PTIN).

Certified Fraud Examiner CPE:  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill Certified Fraud Examiner CPE requirements. To request CPE credit or find out which programs offer CPE, please contact PLI at plicredits@pli.edu.

IAPP Continuing Privacy Credit (CPE):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill Privacy CPE credit requirements.

HR Recertification (HRCI):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill HR credit requirements.

SHRM Recertification (SHRM):  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as "self-paced" credit. SHRM professionals are limited to 30 credits of self-paced programs per recertification period.

Compliance Certification Board (CCB):  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Candidates are limited to 10 self-study credits per 12-month period, and certification holders are limited to 20 self-study credits per 2-year renewal period.

Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialists Certification (CAMS):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for CAMS credit.

New York State Social Worker Continuing Education (SW CPE):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for SW CPE credit.

American Bankers Association Professional Certification (ABA):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill ABA credit requirements.

 

Related Items

Live Programs  Live Programs

Internal Investigations 2018 (New York, NY) Jun. 22, 2018
Internal Investigations 2018 (Chicago, IL) Jun. 6, 2018

Handbook  Course Handbook Archive

Internal Investigations 2018  
Internal Investigations 2017 Steven S Scholes, McDermott Will & Emery LLP
Richard J Morvillo, Morvillo LLP
Nancy Kestenbaum, Covington & Burling LLP
 
Share
Email

“Great mix of topics. Very thorough.”

Cynthia Reed, JPMorgan Chase & Co

“I loved the hypo. Great speakers all around.”

“Loved the hypothetical”

“Another exceptional program this year.”

“The hypo was very detailed and effective.”

2016 Attendees

“I thought that this was very up to date.  I found the disclosure pieces to be the most helpful and practical.”

Joseph Blanco, Dentons US LLP

“Very informative and well presented.”

Christopher Spelman, Cravath Swaine & Moore LLP


  • FOLLOW PLI:
  • twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • GooglePlus
  • RSS

All Contents Copyright © 1996-2017 Practising Law Institute. Continuing Legal Education since 1933.

© 2017 PLI PRACTISING LAW INSTITUTE. All rights reserved. The PLI logo is a service mark of PLI.