11 November 2010: Network Rail and Jarvis Rail to be prosecuted over the Potters Bar crash. Rail regulators began criminal proceedings against the two companies yesterday, eight and a half years after the train crash took place killing seven people and injuring more than 70. The Office of Rail Regulation identified serious health and safety breaches by the two companies. If found guilty, they could face unlimited fines. For more information, click here.

20 September 2010: Oil company to pay nearly $23 million penalty for cheating the US government in royalty case: Kerr-McGee Oil and Gas was ordered to pay treble damages, or triple the $7.5 million that a jury said in 2007 the company was liable for, because of the false royalty claims it submitted to the federal government. The fine includes $5.7 million payable to the auditor who uncovered the problem. To find out more, click here.

23 August 2010: US judges complain about government's deals with banks: Two judges (Emmet G. Sullivan and Ellen Segal Huvelle) of Federal District Court chewed out federal prosecutors at hearings in Washington last week for a proposed settlement with Barclays and Citigroup, respectively. The scoldings from the bench are a striking departure from a long tradition of judicial deference to settlements formulated by federal agencies, reflecting broad disenchantment not just with Wall Street, but with its government overseers as well. For more information, click here.

31 July 2010: CPS considers manslaughter charge over the Potters Bar rail crash eight years ago. Seven people were killed and more than 70 injured, when a King's Cross to King's Lynn train derailed on 10 May 2002. A coroner blamed a points failure and warned that passengers are still at risk of derailment. The CPS is awaiting a report from British Transport Police to see if the inquest shows any new evidence that would require it to overturn its 2005 decision not to prosecute. 

23 July 2010: Trafigura fined €1m for illegally exporting toxic waste to Africa: The oil company Trafigura has been sentenced to pay £840,000 for causing the environmental disaster in which 30,000 Africans became ill when the toxic waste was dumped in Ivory Coast. For more information, click here.

16 July 2010: Companies responsible for the 2005 Buncefield oil depot explosion sentenced to pay over £9 million in fines and costs. The five companies are Total, Hertfordshire Oil Storage Ltd, British Pipeline Agency Ltd, Motherwell Control Systems 2003 Ltd, and TAV Engineering Ltd. For more information, click here.

15 July 2010: US Congress passes Financial Regulations Bill: The US Senate approved the Bill, which is intended to mark the overhaul of the financial regulatory system. For more information, click here.

15 July 2010: Goldman Sachs settles with the S.E.C. for $550 million: the firm agreed to pay the US Government $550 million, to settle charges of securities fraud linked to mortgage investments. The firm did not admit liability. For more information, click here.

7 June 2010: Increasing pressure to re-open the Bhopal criminal trials To listen to a BBC broadcast contrasting the way America treats the disaster in the Gulf of Mexico and the disaster at Bhopal (minute 10 onwards), click here.

18 June 2010: three companies found guilty of health & safety offences in the 2005 Buncefield explosion Almost five years after the oil explosion that took place in Hertfordshire in December 2005, injuring 43 people and destroying homes and businesses, three companies - TAV Engineering Ltd, of Guildford, Surrey, Hertfordshire Oil Storage Limited, and Motherwell Control Systems, Liverpool - were convicted of health & safety breaches. For more information, click here. Sentencing will take place at St Albans Crown Court next month. The verdict is expected to renew focus on oil safety - for details, click here.

7 June 2010: eight managers sentenced to two years in prison and a £1,467 fine each for causing death by negligence in Bhopal, more than 25 years ago: all those convicted are former Indian plant employees at Union Carbide, one of whom had already died. Warren Anderson, the American chairman of the parent company at the time of the disaster, was not mentioned at the verdict. For more information, click here. 

2 June 2010: US Government begins criminal investigation into the Gulf of Mexico oil spill: "If we find evidence of illegal behaviour, we will be extremely forceful in our response" said Eric Holder, the US Attorney General. For more information, click here.

1 June 2010: Launch of inquiry into the Potters Bar train crash: an inquest into the death of the 7 people killed in the crash more than eight years ago is finally under way. For more information click here.

21 May 2010: Concorde trial progress report: the prosecution requests sentences of 175,000 euro fine for the company (Continental Airlines), accused of corporate manslaughter, 2 years in prison for the programme director, and 18 months in prison for two employees (a mechanic and his manager). Sentencing is scheduled to take place on 6 December. For more information, click here.

1 May 2010: Federal prosecutors have opened a criminal investigation into alleged fraud at Goldman Sachs: The US attorney's office in Manhattan has begun liaising with the securities and exchange commission, which brought civil charges against Goldman two weeks ago accusing the firm of misleading investors over a $1bn (£660m) derivatives deal masterminded by a London-based executive, Fabrice Tourre. For more information, click here. For an in-depth analysis of "What a criminal inquiry portends for Goldman", click here.

20 April 2010: FSA launches investigation into Goldman Sachs in relation to recent SEC fraud allegations: the City regulator has made it clear that it wants to interview top executives at the bank in London. Goldman Sachs say they "look forward to cooperating with the FSA". For more information, click here. To read more about the SEC charges, click here.

18 February 2010: Court rules SFO approach to dealing with overseas corruption potentially unconstitutional
Lord Justice Thomas today ruled that the SFO should no longer enter into negotiated settlements with offenders which fix the penalty in advance of court scrutiny. See the judgement and a brief comment on Corruption Watch website.

5 February 2010: BAE has pleaded guilty to the charge of having misled the Congress
The BAE admitted having 'knowingly and wilfully' misled the US Government by failing to honour a pledge that it would be rigorous in ensuring that no payments would be made to officials of governments when trying to win business from those governments. The BAE will pay a fine of $400m (£250m), just over 10% of the company's profit in the year prior to the conviction. Click here for a link to the news article.

2 February 2010: Concorde crash trial to open in France
Continental Airlines and 5 individuals will go on trial over the July 2000 Concorde crash.
Details about the crash are available on the BBC News website. Click here for a link to the news article.

On January 21, 2010 the US Supreme Court decided there was no basis for allowing the Government to limit corporate and union independent contributions to electoral campaigns.
To read the full Supreme Court Decision, click here.

Commentary – Supreme Court decision on corporate campaign contributions threat to laws aimed at corporate misconduct                                                       

by James Gobert, Professor of Law, University of Essex

In Citizens United v. Federal Election (see link in this section) the United States Supreme Court, by a 5-4 division along conservative-liberal lines, held that campaign contributions of corporations were protected by the 1st Amendment (political speech). The Court’s decision has been roundly criticised in editorials and by politicians. President Obama, himself a former law professor, has warned of the consequences. I share his concerns but am particularly worried about the implications of the decision for the long term prospects for laws directed to corporate criminal liability. While the following vision may appear apocalyptic, here is the chain reaction that I fear may have been set in motion by the Court’s decision:

(1) Wealthy corporations, either directly or through Political Action Committees (PACs), swell the campaign war chests of pro-business candidates with mega-contributions. The contributors comprise the “usual suspects”: oil companies opposed to environmental legislation; banks concerned about efforts to curb their investment strategies or limit bonuses; and insurance companies and HMOs opposed to health care reform.  Few corporations would be so crass as to condition their contribution on votes on specific issues but this is not necessary when a candidate’s pro-business credentials are well-established and his/her votes predictable.

(2) The campaign contributions are used to bombard the electorate with negative TV ads. Who can forget the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ads and the effect that they may have had on the 2004 presidential election? Voters, not well-informed in the best of times, may be naive enough to believe the professionally polished ads. Less ideological candidates may lack the money to correct the inaccuracies in the TV blitz.

(3) Election of pro-business candidates has legislative ramifications. Proposed laws aimed at reigning in corporate excesses never get out of hearing rooms, are filibustered in the Senate, or are voted down. Indeed, it is the legislation that is not enacted which is more threatening than that which is; the latter at least is open to public scrutiny and judicial review; the latter remains as an invisible force allowing business to carry on as usual.  Further, a pro-business Congress may repeal existing legislation such as the Alien Tort Claims Act. Two hundred years after its passage, for most of which time it lay dormant, this Act is now being used to call to account corporations which have been complicit in human rights violations. In the Khulumani cases, for example, a mix of multinational automotive corporations (e.g., Ford and Daimler), technology companies (e.g., IBM) and international banks (e.g. Barclays) is currently being sued for allegedly aiding and abetting crimes committed by the former apartheid government in South Africa.  

(4) Budgets of agencies charged with enforcing regulatory legislation aimed at businesses are slashed in the name of fiscal responsibility. In the present financial climate such cuts are easy to justify (although which agencies’ budgets are cut and by how much is the more critical issue). Back-room lobbying by the business community of pro-business legislators leads to agencies being starved to the point they can no longer effectively carry out their functions. The “law on the books” may be hard-hitting but the “law in practice” may undermine it through non-enforcement.  In the UK the agency responsible for enforcing health and safety laws has seen its budget cut, by a Labour government no less, to the point that it can now only inspect a company once every dozen years.

(5)  Presidential nominations to the United States Supreme Court require the “advice and consent” of the Senate. It would not be difficult for pro-business senators to find reasons to block the appointment of liberal nominees while approving the appointment of more conservative candidates. With Justices being appointed for life and with so many cases being decided by a single vote (Citizens United was itself a 5-4 decision), a single Supreme Court Justice can influence the course of the law well beyond the administration that nominated the Justice.

(7) The above phenomenon as it relates to judges is played out slightly differently in the 30+ American states where State Supreme Court Justices are elected. Again, campaigns of conservative candidates for judgeships may be liberally funded by corporations seeking to seat ideologically sympathetic Justices on the State Supreme Court. Again, the money may be spent on negative ads, with the difference being that in state judicial races (unlike in Congressional races) the chance of an opposing candidate being able to match the corporately-funded candidate may be minimal. For a chilling account of the effects of such a scenario, I would recommend John Grisham’s  “The Appeal” (although a work of fiction, there is, as in many of Grisham’s’ novels, a solid factual underpinning).

(8) Is there a way to escape the above vision of doom and gloom? A constitutional amendment reversing the Supreme Court’s decision is highly unrealistic. The more realistic way forwards would be for Congress to reform campaign financing. But that would require approval by a Congress composed of pro-business Senators and Representative who are likely quite happy with the way things are. And even if legislation restraining the power of corporate spending in election campaigns were to be enacted, it would still have to survive scrutiny by a Supreme Court that has already staked out its position on corporate political speech.