"Guide to monitorships is essential because of lack of statutes, court precedent" co-authored by Daniel R. Alonso (Law.com)
Law.comDaniel R. Alonso
With some regularity over the past 25 years, government actions against corporate actors have resulted in the imposition of independent monitors. “Monitor” can have multiple meanings, but is usually understood to be an independent third party appointed to ensure compliance with regulatory or court-ordered requirements, typically following the settlement of an enforcement action. Depending on the agreement or order in question, monitors often report on the entity’s internal controls and compliance functions and may be tasked with making recommendations aimed at reducing the risk of misconduct.
Monitorships have been imposed for compliance breaches in a multitude of U.S. regulatory actions, such as violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, economic sanctions, civil rights violations, anticompetitive business practices under antitrust law, accounting practices and environmental crimes. These resolutions are no longer unique to the U.S., having been imposed in recent years in the United Kingdom. Although the imposition of monitors has slowed somewhat (by design) during the current presidential administration, they are in no danger of going away.
Click here to read the full article. Subscription required.