|
Chances are, if you work for a private company, you don’t think about the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 very often. It applies to publicly traded companies, right? Well, yes — the provisions that evoke the most comment and criticism apply to public companies. But there are , according to a National Law Journal article published at law.com. Robert D. Brownstone, Catherine Kevane and J. Carlos Orellana say any organization?- public, private, large, small?- that ignores sections 802 and 1102 of Sarbanes-Oxley does so at its own risk. Here’s why: These provisions impose substantial criminal penalties on any individual or entity — public or private — for destruction of evidence or obstruction of justice regarding any actual or “contemplated" federal investigation, matter or official proceeding. If you’ll recall, we covered this issue in passing a little more than a year ago when a with destroying evidence in a child pornography case. Between these provisions, the case law and amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure concerning , the writers say, it is imperative that companies ensure that their record-retention policies and processes incorporate litigation holds. So what should a litigation hold policy look like? A litigation hold on records should be imposed when you know of or can reasonably anticipate a legal proceeding in which the records might be necessary or when you know or reasonably anticipate that the government will assert the right to access the information. In ideal situations, a single person from legal will make decisions about when litigation holds should be imposed. When that is not possible, the decision should be made by a very small group of people. Brownstone, Kevane and Orellana also suggest the policy should provide for:
|
| Technology | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||