As noted earlier here, U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan earlier this week slapped the Department of Justice upside the head for threatening KPMG with indictment in the KPMG tax shelter case unless the firm threw its partners to the wolves by rescinding the firm’s policy of paying its partners’ defense costs in such cases. Although Judge Kaplan concluded that it was premature to dismiss the indictment against the KPMG partners as the remedy for the DOJ’s misconduct and fashioned a financial remedy for the partners instead, Larry Ribstein believes that Judge Kaplan’s opinion is a landmark decision that calls into question the DOJ’s dubious policy of criminalizing corporate agency costs in reaction to Enron and other recent corporate scandals:

My basic problem with criminalization of agency costs is precisely that it ignores internal corporate arrangements. The complex set of contracts and incentive devices that comprise a corporation simply doesn’t fit with the sort of moral condemnation that criminal penalties necessarily involve. The nuances of an agency contract are the proverbial square peg in the round hole of criminal law.
But Judge Kaplan emphasizes that indemnification serves an important function in an agency contract: If directors and other agents are over-exposed to liability, they simply wonít work for the firm. One might add that even if they do work for the firm, they wonít take the risks that are necessary to maximize shareholder value and to make capitalism work. Corporate criminal liability essentially seeks to reengineer the firm to change incentives so that agents are no longer maximizing profits, but attempting to root out fraud at all costs.
The fundamental importance of this case is that Judge Kaplan is telling the government that the contract matters, even if it gets in the way of prosecution. By doing this, Judge Kaplan is re-reengineering the firm to make it, once again, a profit-maximizing entity rather than a government agent. [. . .]
Of course this one case isnít going to solve all of the problems of corporate criminal liability. Corporate defendants will face the basic problem that it is hugely burdensome to defend these cases, which gives the government considerable leverage. The case’s precise implications for other uses of government leverage are unclear. But by saying that there is a limit to what the government may do in criminalizing agency costs, the judge has taken an important first step. I predict the opinion will be a landmark.

Read the entire post.