That’s the conclusion of a new scorecard published by the Unfriend Coal network, which evaluated the leading U.S. and European re/insurance companies’ climate-related policies and behavior.

The insurance companies were scored based on their commitments to a) divest from coal and other fossil fuels; b) cease underwriting dirty energy projects; c) invest in clean energy; and, d) lead the broader fight against climate change. Consideration was also given to how transparent the companies have been.

U.S. insurers — including AIG, Berkshire Hathaway, Liberty Mutual, Prudential and TIAA — scored poorly across the board, lagging behind their European competitors, including AXA, Allianz and others that have collectively divested $20 billion from coal. Some have also begun to limit insurance services for coal-related projects.

American insurers by contrast have taken no meaningful action to stop underwriting or investing in new dirty energy projects, including coal-fueled power plants, the biggest source of climate destroying carbon dioxide emissions.

Last year CERES reported that 40 U.S. insurers had a total of $459 billion in coal-heavy electric utilities and oil and gas companies. That included $1.8 billion held in coal company investments, which may seem a small stake until you consider that coal company stocks had plummeted precipitously. In fact, by the end of 2016, nearly half of U.S. coal was produced by companies that had already filed for bankruptcy.

CERES reported that the 40 US insurance groups had invested a median concentration of 12.1 percent of their bonds in fossil fuels companies, a much higher stake compared to the 6.7 percent of index bonds invested in fossil fuels at the same time.

Many U.S. insurers contacted for the Unfriend Coal report — including AIG, Liberty Mutual and Berkshire Hathaway — refused to participate or even respond to a questionnaire asking about their policies.

Investors have also been getting the brush-off. During Berkshire Hathaway’s 2016 shareholder meeting CEO Warren Buffett assured shareholders they have nothing to worry about — climate-related risks would be manageable and even profitable.

But a year later, after three hurricanes and the Mexican earthquake, Berkshire Hathaway reported $3 billion in natural disaster-related losses for its most recent quarter, and that it was on course for its first insurance underwriting loss in over 15 years.

A Bloomberg analyst suggested that an increase in extreme weather events should cause industry leaders to second-guess their assumptions: “Contrary to [Berkshire Hathaway CEO] Warren Buffett’s view that climate change will spur demand for coverage and boost profit at his insurance companies, the risk is the opposite unfolds as shifting weather patterns render disaster-prone areas uninsurable.”

Buffett has invested significantly in wind and solar, which are increasingly profitable. But his company has also joined attacks on solar-friendly policies in Nevada, and his BNSF railroad transports massive quantities of coal.

But Buffett is hardly alone. Many insurers hold large stakes in companies whose projects are hugely risky and controversial. Among the largest holders of bonds issued to Transcanada, the owner and developer of the Keystone XL pipeline, are major U.S. insurance companies such as New York Life, Guardian Life, John Hancock, Prudential and State Farm.

Since insurance companies’ underwriting activities are subject to weaker disclosure requirements, the magnitude of the risks they carry is less clear than their investments. But it’s a virtual certainty that U.S. insurers are underwriting many operations that have the potential to turn into “stranded assets,” as well as some of the most operationally risky parts of the oil and gas industry. In 2014, for example, AIG started insuring rail companies for up to $1 billion for shipping crude oil by rail in 2014, a little more than a year after a catastrophic derailment killed 47 people in Quebec. Watchdog groups like DeSmog describe the many derailments that happen each year as potentially catastrophic “oil bombs.”

Insurers manage a third of the world’s investment capital, which means that in the aggregate, their investments have an enormous influence on the direction and shape of the energy sector, along with their underwriting policies. Yet insurance companies pay even less attention to the climate impacts of their investments than other investors, according to a report published by the Climate Institute’s Asset Owners Disclosure Project in 2016. “As long as few insurers take action on climate risk, there is a danger of systemic failure which could have catastrophic effects on the wider economy,” the report noted.

Climate-related risks are so potentially large that Mark Carney, the Governor of the Bank of England and Chair of the International Financial Stability Board has repeatedly warned about systemic risks extending to the entire global economy.

The good news is that the climbing costs of extreme weather have started to compel some industry leaders to acknowledge the industry’s responsibility to start phasing out coal, oil and gas.

“It’s a big concern of Swiss Re that there’s such a huge gap between the economic losses and what is insured,” said Peter Zimmerli, the head of atmospheric perils at Swiss Re, the world’s second-biggest reinsurer. “Some of the signals of global warming are just there — they can’t be debated any more.”

“We’re living in a world where risk is growing exponentially,” Tom Herbstein of ClimateWise, an industry-backed insurance project at the University of Cambridge, told Bloomberg. “Climate change fundamentally challenges the existing insurance business model because it is rendering actuary analysis in many places obsolete.”

If climate risks are beginning to concern some industry executives, shareholders and policyholders, the threat of insolvency should be of greater concern to U.S. taxpayers, given that they are the “ultimate insurers” of too-big-to-fail financial institutions, like AIG, which was already bailed out less than a decade ago.

In fact, the onus of bearing the expense of rebuilding after hurricanes, floods and earthquakes already falls disproportionately on taxpayers — through increasingly expensive government programs such as the National Flood Insurance Program, which was already underwater before this year’s hurricanes nearly bankrupted it.

Insurers are only on the hook for about 10 percent of the estimated $75 billion in damages caused by flooding after Hurricane Harvey in Texas, according to AIR Worldwide. That’s because most standard U.S. home insurance policies don’t cover flooding. And with government programs weak and dysfunctional, the damage is especially significant for the minority and low-income communities that were hit hardest.

It is these communities along with taxpayers, not insurance companies, that will ultimately foot most of the bill for the fifteen catastrophes that resulted in over $1 billion in federal and private insurance claims within the first nine months of 2017, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) National Centers for Environmental Information.

“We expect these costs will continue to rise in the future due to both an increase in exposed properties in harm’s way and the increase in the frequency and intensity of some types of extreme weather that leads to costly disasters,” said NOAA spokesperson Brady Phillips.

While the Trump administration and Congress continue to stick their heads in the sand and push for corporate tax cuts, leading U.S. fiscal authorities have been issuing a steady stream of warnings about these economic impacts. In a report released on Oct. 23, the Government Accountability Office concluded that extreme weather and fire events cost the federal government $350 billion over the last decade, including the expense of disaster assistance, and flood and crop insurance losses. This doesn’t include damages from this year’s hurricanes and fires, or the cost to private insurers, such as the companies surveyed in the new report.

These costs will only continue to climb as climate change intensifies. A year ago, the Office of Management and Budget warned that climate change related damages from extreme weather events would cost U.S. taxpayers an additional $12 to $35 billion per year by 2050.

While the federal government shares responsibility with states for disaster recovery efforts, it is state governments that bear primary responsibility for regulating the U.S. re/insurance industry. For that reason, it will largely fall upon them to begin to connect the dots and question the re/insurance industry’s climate-related investments. That has already begun to happen. In early 2016, for example, California Insurance Commissioner Dave Jones called on the industry to voluntarily divest from coal and further disclose their climate-related policies.

While U.S. insurers have been slow to respond to such calls, leading European companies have already taken steps — some of them significant — to sever their connection to the fossil fuel industry. This November Zurich announced that it will divest from and cease offering insurance to companies that depend on coal for more than 50 percent of their business. Zurich has some of the strongest policies on the new insurance company report card, which rates 25 of the world’s biggest insurers on their action around coal and climate change.

Swiss Re and Lloyd’s have informed Greenpeace and Unfriend Coal that in the coming months they will also announce new detailed underwriting and investment policies. In all, 15 insurers with over $4 trillion in assets have now taken, or are planning action, on coal — divesting an estimated $20 billion in equities and bonds or ceasing to underwrite projects.

This $4 trillion only includes assets covered by coal divestment decisions, not all assets managed by the re/insurance companies. Thus, while it’s encouraging to see the growing shift away from coal, these early movers still need to do more, and most insurers have yet to do anything to address the dangerous risks surrounding climate change.

So far, no insurer has taken steps to cease underwriting or divest from ALL fossil fuels. Some — such as Swiss Re — have adopted policies that avoid underwriting projects that pose enormous environmental risks, such as tar sands extraction and Arctic drilling. But as a rule, the insurance sector continues to be utterly non-transparent regarding the underwriting of specific transactions.

It’s particularly disturbing that no U.S. insurer has pursued meaningful action, while industry giants such as Berkshire Hathaway, AIG, Liberty Mutual and Chubb remain completely silent about the catastrophic climate risks affecting their clients.

This inaction by U.S. insurers, along with their near total silence when it comes to advocating for climate action — especially at a time when President Trump is trying to drag the country into the dark depths of climate denial — is completely unacceptable and reeks of complicity.

Yes, it’s official. General Motors engaged in criminal wrongdoing for long knowing about the lethal defect in its ignition switch that took at least 174 lives and counting, plus serious injuries. At least 1.6 million GM cars – Chevrolet Cobalt and other models – hid this danger to trusting drivers, according to the Center for Auto Safety (http://www.autosafety.org/). Corporation executives who lie to or mislead the federal government violate Title 18 of the federal code, and risk criminal penalties.

But, the long-mismanaged automaker was not required by the Justice Department to plead guilty at all. Preet Bharara, the U.S. Attorney from New York, and Attorney General Loretta Lynch did not bring an indictment against either General Motors or known culpable officials in GM, including top GM lawyers and safety directors, who participated in the cover-up year after year, while lying to federal officials and not reporting these defects.

The Justice Department fined GM a modest $900 million, which the Wall Street Journal called a “lower-than-expected financial penalty.” The government also agreed to a notorious three year “deferred prosecution” deal, which corporate crime expert, Law Professor Rena Steinzor, called “a toothless way of approaching a very serious problem.” Three years of compliance, watched by a federal monitor and then the Justice Department dismisses the charges.

The “problem” is a fast maturing enforcement doctrine – under George W. Bush and Barack Obama – that can be called crimes without criminals. This turns criminal jurisprudence on its head. One standard for big corporations shielding their individual criminals with immunity. There is another standard for street criminals who can be imprisoned for many years for forging checks or burglarizing buildings without harm to humans.

At a press conference to announce the hoisting of this sweetheart deal, U.S. attorney Preet Bharara weakly excused the absence of indictments by asserting: “We apply the laws as we find them, not the way we wish they might be.” Former NHTSA Administraor Joan Claybrook asked Mr. Bharara whether he would urge Congress to meet his wishes. Mr. Bharara dodged the question. He argues that his prosecution was restricted because of “complex structures” in corporations. A multi-million dollar prosecution budget, with many subpoenas, interviews with GM officials and engineers should have penetrated the “corporate veil,” especially since Mr. Bharara waxed eloquent about how GM cooperated and opened itself up for inquiry.

Professor Steinzor, author of Why Not Jail?: Industrial Catastrophes, Corporate Malfeasance, and Government Inaction, rebutted, saying these excuses “are contradicted by their own creative and aggressive behavior in other cases,” involving some small, criminal companies. In one case, against a peanut company, DOJ got felony convictions and a former owner is facing a life sentence under the federal sentencing guidelines.

University of Virginia law Professor Brandon Garrett, author of Too Big to Jail: How Prosecutors Compromise with Corporations, pointed out that “individuals were even wrongly convicted of vehicular manslaughter, having been driving defective [GM] cars. A case this serious should result in a criminal conviction for the company, and many criminal convictions for the individuals involved.”

In short, as noted by the Corporate Crime Reporter: “GM did the crime, the drivers do the time.” A former top Justice Department prosecutor, Michigan Law Professor, David Uhlmann, said that the deferred prosecution agreement with GM “demonstrated how badly the Justice Department has lost its way with regard to corporate crime…There is no excuse for the Department agreeing to dismiss its criminal case against GM if the company pays a large fine and cleans up its act.”

The industry is now heavily lobbying the House and Senate to keep a provision for criminal penalties out of the pending highway bill being championed by Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) and Senator Edward Markey (D-MA). But since 1966, brazen GM and the auto industry have spent millions of dollars to make sure there is no specific criminal penalty, even for willful violation of safety standards that take lives, in the auto safety law.

Unfortunately, these giant companies have Congressman Fred Upton (R-MI) and Senator John Thune (R-SD), the respective committee chairs wrapped around their dollar-spinning fingers.

Senator Blumenthal and Markey severely criticized the Justice Department’s concession: “Knowing and willful violations of the vehicle safety statutes – deception that literally kill American consumers – should be a criminal violation, as we have proposed in the Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 2015 and in the Hide No Harm Act.” They should also demand no more deferred prosecution malarkey in dealing with corporate crime generally.

The mass media has given significant lots of coverage to the 64 million cars recalled by the likes of Toyota, Honda, GM, Chrysler, and other auto manufacturers, along with the huge debacle by Takata over its air bag cost cutting. So the politicians on Capitol Hill, having conducted tough talk public hearings in the past two years, know they are in the spotlight.

Please help the hundreds of victims and their families such as Laura Christian, who lost her 16-year-old daughter, Amber Marie Rose, and is still fighting to bring GM and its culpable officials to justice.

Call Senator Blumenthal’s office at 202-224-0335 or Senator Markey’s office at 202-224-2742 for further information.

For Immediate Release: Thursday, May 28, 2015
Contact: Valentina Stackl, (202)466-5188×100, valentina@earthrights.org

Majority of Congress Failed to Take Action on Corporate Accountability in 2014

Trade Promotion Authority is Opportunity for Congress to Reverse this Trend

WASHINGTON – The majority of the U.S. Congress took no action at all in 2014 in favor of holding corporations accountable and reining in corporate power – scoring a zero on the newly released Corporate Accountability Coalition (CAC) Congressional Report Card. Covering the Second Session of the 113th Congress, the third edition of the Report Card offers an objective measure of congressional leadership in creating policy that protects people and promotes accountability and transparency.

According to the latest Gallup polls, Americans’ satisfaction with the size and influence of major corporations remains at historic lows, with 36% satisfied and 59% dissatisfied, and few Americans have confidence in “big business” – with only 21% having a “great deal” or “quite a lot” of confidence. Nonetheless, the Report Card shows that Congress is failing to prioritize legislation that favor the power and rights of real people rather than corporations.

The latest debate to feature corporate accountability issue is over Trade Promotion Authority, where proposed trade deals may grant even greater rights to multinational corporations and limit governments’ ability to regulate them.

“Although its record last year was disappointing, Congress has an opportunity now to reverse this trend and ensure that any new trade deals protect the rights of people, and the sovereignty of governments, rather than granting increased rights to corporations,” said Katie Redford, Director and Co-Founder of CAC member EarthRights International.

Only one Senator and one Representative received a perfect score: Senator Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), and Representative Jim McGovern (D-MA). Last year seven Senators and two Representatives had a perfect score, indicating that they had co-sponsored or voted for all of the pro-accountability measures and no anti-accountability measures.

Overall, Congress performed even worse than last year. Several states had entire delegations who failed to take any action in favor of corporate accountability, including Alabama, Kansas, Idaho, Nebraska, and Utah.

“This Report Card continues to monitor and score the actions of our elected representatives in Congress, reminding them that they are elected to represent real people, and not corporations,” says Amol Mehra, Director of the International Corporate Accountability Roundtable, a CAC member.

About the Report Card

The Corporate Accountability Coalition Report Card represents an attempt to educate the public about Congress’s record in protecting people from the unchecked growth of corporate influence.

The Report Card presents information on whether Members of Congress have supported measures that either strengthen or weaken limits on corporate conduct, regulate or give free rein to corporations when they attempt to go beyond those limits, and hold corporations accountable or provide impunity when they disregard those limits.

“Our lawmakers have a duty to shine a light on the corporations that refuse to pay their taxes; those who abuse environmental and human rights; and those that enjoy undue influence over government policy,” says Pratap Chatterjee, Executive Director of CorpWatch. “Most of Congress has refused to do its job, as this Report Card demonstrates.”

For Immediate Release: July 15, 2014

Contact: Angela Bradbery, (202) 588-7741, abradbery@citizen.org; or Brian Gumm, (202) 683-4812, bgumm@foreffectivegov.org

New Legislation Would Allow Criminal Penalties Against Corporate Officers Who Hide Information on Dangerous Products

Sen. Blumenthal’s Bill Would Close Loophole That Lets General Motors Officials Avoid Jail Time in Recall Scandal

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Consumer safety, public health, environmental and other groups in the Coalition for Sensible Safeguards lauded a new bill introduced today by U.S. Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), co-sponsored by Sens. Bob Casey (D-Pa.) and Tom Harkin (D-Iowa). The “Hide No Harm” bill would hold corporate officers criminally accountable if they knowingly conceal serious dangers that lead to consumer or worker deaths or injuries. Penalties could include jail time.

The bill comes in response to the recent General Motors recall scandal, in which an ignition switch defect was linked to at least 13 deaths. Documents released by a congressional committee showed that some GM officials knew about problems with the device as early as 2001. Under existing law, while the company eventually could face criminal fines, individual officers who knew about the deadly defect – but did not inform the public or federal regulators – cannot face any criminal charges. Fines against an entire company often do not deter irresponsible actions that endanger the public. On May 16, federal officials announced a paltry $35 million civil fine against GM.

Other cases in which corporate officers withheld information they knew about dangerous products include the following:

• Merck withheld information on the risks of the arthritis drug Vioxx from doctors and patients for more than five years, resulting in up to 139,000 heart attacks;
• Simplicity Cribs sold products company officials knew were defective, leading to at least 11 baby’s death and many injuries; and
• Toyota officials knew that millions of cars it had sold had a defective gas pedal mechanism that could cause unintended acceleration – which had led to numerous fatal collisions – yet the company failed to tell the public or federal regulators, the company later admitted in a federal settlement.

The public interest groups announced their support for the bill in a letter to senators today, urging them to co-sponsor the bill.

“Our current fines and penalties are not tough enough to ensure that every business is playing by the same rules,” said Katherine McFate, president and CEO of the Center for Effective Government and CSS co-chair. “We have to make sure that the businesses that are willing to put the health of the American people at risk face heavy sanctions. The bad actors should not have a competitive advantage over responsible businesses that adhere to health and safety standards.”

Robert Weissman, president of Public Citizen and CSS co-chair, said: “Too many times, we’ve seen officials at companies decide to keep selling a dangerous product to consumers, knowing that even if they get caught, the penalties will be small. This bill would protect the public because it would finally put formidable penalties on these rule-breakers and help deter them. Our regulatory system needs more teeth to ensure that companies take health and safety seriously.”

Peg Seminario, safety and health director for the AFL-CIO, said: “Countless numbers of workers and citizens have suffered and died because companies withheld and hid information on the dangers of products and exposures like asbestos. This bill would hold corporate officials personally responsible for their role in these deaths and injuries, help stop corporate concealment and save lives.”

Rachel Weintraub, legislative director and senior counsel with Consumer Federation of America, said: “This bill will provide an important deterrent to companies and their executives who knowingly sell and distribute unsafe products to consumers. The consequences to consumers can be dire while the consequences for companies may be negligible. This legislation seeks to ensure that the consequences of selling an unsafe product are significant.”

Sally Greenberg, executive director of the National Consumers League, said: “The National Consumers League supports Senator Blumenthal’s legislation to hold corporate wrongdoers criminally liable if they conceal serious dangers that lead to consumer or worker deaths or injuries. In case after case – GM, Toyota, Vioxx, Simplicity Cribs – companies cover up grave product defects that cause the death or grave injury of consumers, including children and teenagers. Civil penalties don’t work to deter this behavior – the company pays a fine and no one is held accountable. That must change and criminal liability will be that game changer.”

Celia Wexler, senior Washington representative, Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists, said: “Access to information is the cornerstone of our democracy. This legislation sends a clear message that corporations have a serious responsibility to inform the public, including disclosure of information crucial to protecting public health.”

A group of law professors also announced their support for the bill in a separate letter today.

###

The Coalition for Sensible Safeguards is an alliance of consumer, labor, scientific, research, good government, faith, community, health, environmental, and public interest groups, as well as concerned individuals, joined in the belief that our country’s system of regulatory safeguards provides a stable framework that secures our quality of life and paves the way for a sound economy that benefits us all. For more information about the coalition, see http://www.sensiblesafeguards.org/about_us.

Attorney General Eric Holder’s sweetheart settlement with Switzerland’s second largest bank, corporate criminal Credit Suisse, sent the wrong message to other corporate barons. Senator John McCain (R-AZ) says it well:

“Nor does the plea deal hold any officers, directors or key executives individually accountable for wrongdoing, raising the question of whether it will sufficiently deter similar misconduct in the future.”

Mr. Holder, of course, touted the deal as tough. Credit Suisse was fined a non-deductible $2.6 billion for their long, elaborate plan to provide tax evasion services for many thousands of wealthy Americans. The bank agreed to plead guilty of criminal wrongdoing – a rare demand on the usually coddled large financial institutions. In addition, Credit Suisse, in Mr. Holder’s words, failed “to retain key documents, allowed evidence to be lost or destroyed, and conducted a shamefully inadequate internal inquiry”… through a “conspiracy” that “spanned decades.”

The bank also agreed to a “statement of facts” that detailed the nature of this conspiracy which is worthy of an international crime thriller and involved hundreds of Credit Suisse employees, “secret offshore accounts” and “sham entities and foundations.” In short, this was a broad-based and coordinated sizable, financial criminal enterprise.

Credit Suisse agreed to turn over information about other banks that may be engaged in similar cross-border crimes and also submitted to an outside, independent monitor for two years.

In return, here is what the corporate lawyers, King & Spalding, for Credit Suisse exacted from the Justice Department:

1. The bank retained its permits and licenses to remain fully operational in the United States.

2. Top management and directors emerged unscathed and were allowed to keep their lucrative positions.

3. State and federal regulators, including the SEC and Federal Reserve, agreed not to take related actions against the bank.

4. Credit Suisse does not have to give the Justice Department and the IRS the names of some 22,000 U.S. customers who engaged in these schemes, citing prohibitive Swiss law, which tough U.S. officials could have challenged with a waiver demand.

These concessions mystified both Senator McCain and Senator Carl Levin (D-MI), the latter having conducted an early inquiry into these crimes.

Credit Suisse’s CEO, American Brady Dougan, immediately issued a statement regretting “the past misconduct,” and then said that the deal will produce no “material impact” on “our operational or business capabilities.”

For comparison, let’s imagine that such crimes were committed by a community bank or a credit union. They would have shut them down and their executives would have been prosecuted, convicted and sent to jail, as many officials were during the savings and loan scandals in the Eighties and Nineties.

In short, Credit Suisse is not only too big to fail but its human schemers at the top rungs of the company apparently are too big to jail. Eight lower level supervisors were indicted. Six of them remain hidden in Switzerland and therefore can’t be extradited.

The aforementioned deal is relevant since it sets a precedent for the many future settlements expected in the near future between the Justice Department and the banks here and abroad. The more members of Congress from both parties howl and the more people demand an end to the double standard of enforcement between the Big Boys and the little guys, the stronger future deals will be and maybe Congress will beef up anemic enforcement budgets and pass stronger legislation regarding the corporate crime wave damaging our country and its people.

There is another problem that needs attention, as described by James Henry, former chief economist at McKinsey &Co. on Democracy Now, to wit:

“Eric Holder used to be an attorney at Covington & Burling, after he left the Clinton administration. He was handling UBS [a large Swiss bank] as a client. The chief IRS legal counsel, Mr. Wilkins, used to be a registered representative for the Swiss Banking Association in Washington, when he was a partner at WilmerHale. You have the U.S. treasury secretary, [who] was in charge of Citibank’s global private banking department when he was at Citibank in 2006…. [And] … one of the key golfing partners of the president of the United States, Robert Wolf, used to run UBS America. He was a big fundraiser for Obama in 2008. So this administration is permeated with people who are basically very sympathetic to Wall Street and to Swiss interests, as well.”

These previous relationships paint a troubling picture. Are these government officials willing to state publically that they are not going back through the revolving door to these law firms or large businesses? It is unlikely that they will deny themselves such a routine return to lucrative positions using the experience they built up, at taxpayers’ expense, to represent future corporate clients in trouble with law enforcement.

Mr. Holder would enhance his credibility in office were he to, at last, urge Congress to pass stronger corporate crime laws, adequate enforcement budgets and, endorse veteran Congressman John Conyers’ (D-MN) proposal to establish a corporate crime data base.

Alas, this stronger position against corporate crime is not likely to happen, even though it could save hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars a year. According to the Government Accountability Office and leading expert, Professor Malcolm Sparrow of Harvard University, at least $270 billion will be drained away this year by the healthcare industry, just in computerized billing fraud and abuse.

Shuttling between governments and law firms has always been a tradition, most prominently exhibited by the powerful Lloyd Cutler in the Seventies and Eighties. The current issue of the Corporate Crime Reporter has published the names of the thirty top corporate criminal defense law firms arranging sixty percent of corporate deferred and non-prosecution agreements. It helps mightily for lawyers to bring their government regulatory experience to these giant power brokers.

Mr. Holder’s plea deal with Credit Suisse has to go for approval to U.S. District Judge Rebecca Smith. There may be intervenors objecting to its lenient terms. Stay tuned.

For Immediate Release: Friday, April 11, 2014
For More Information Contact: Ralph Nader or Gary Ruskin (202) 387-8030

Two Key Corporate Accountability Bills Introduced by Rep. Conyers

Yesterday, U.S. Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) introduced two important corporate accountability measures: (1) the Dangerous Products Warning Act, to require manufacturers to warn consumers and regulators if their products are dangerous or deadly; and (2) the Corporate Crime Database Act, to require the Justice Department to establish and update a database of criminal, civil or administrative proceedings against corporations, and to make it available to the public for free via the Internet.

Consumer advocate Ralph Nader said, “Corporate crime has long swept our nation, draining people’s hard-earned savings and severely harming the health and safety of millions of people. The executive and corporate perpetrators of this crime wave, far more often than not, are getting away scot-free and sometimes promoted.”  “Representative Conyers has championed corporate accountability for many years.  Consumers, workers and taxpayers should appreciate his steadfast leadership in reminding Congress of the need to hold corporations and their CEOs responsible, under adequate law enforcement, for corporate crimes and their violations.”  Nader added, “We expect other members of Congress will join with Representative Conyers in supporting these long-overdue pieces of legislation, unless, that is they are comfortable with the harm done to citizens back home by such constant corporate ravages.”

“These two great bills would help protect consumers from deadly products, and inform citizens about corporate crime and who perpetrates it,” said Gary Ruskin, director of the Center for Corporate Policy. “They would help hold corporations accountable for their crimes and for failing to warn us about deadly products.”

The Dangerous Products Warning Act (H.R. 4451) would require companies to warn consumers, employees and the appropriate federal regulators of any product or service that poses a serious danger to the public. The legislation would create criminal liability for product supervisors who knew of serious dangers but failed to warn federal regulators or affected parties.  Under this legislation, such warnings must be made within fifteen days after such discovery is made, or immediately if there is an imminent risk of serious bodily injury or death.  It would also prohibit retaliation against whistleblowers who disclose product dangers to regulators.

The Corporate Crime Database Act (H.R. 4452) would require the Justice Department to establish a database containing administrative, civil and criminal proceedings against corporations or corporate officials initiated by the federal or state governments.  It would also require the Justice Department to prepare an annual report on the number of criminal, administrative and civil actions brought against corporations or corporate officials, as well as the ultimate disposition of those actions, including the size of any fines or other penalties.

On Wednesday, USA Today published an op-ed by Ralph Nader titled “Carnage is a Corporate Tradition” in support of the Dangerous Products Warning Act. In March, he also wrote an article for the Huffington Post titled “Getting Tough on Devastating Corporate Crime.”

The Center for Corporate Policy recently released letters in support of the Dangerous Products Warning Act and the Corporate Crime Database Act (DPWA letter/CCDA letter).

The Center for Corporate Policy is a project of Essential Information. Founded in 1982 by Ralph Nader, Essential Information is a Washington, DC-based nonprofit, tax-exempt organization. It is involved in a variety of projects to promote corporate accountability, a more just economy, public health and a sustainable planet.  It has published a bi-monthly magazine, books and reports, sponsored conferences, provided writers with grants to pursue investigations, published daily news summaries, operated clearinghouses that disseminate information to grassroots organizations in the United States and developing countries worldwide, and has hosted scores of conferences focusing on government and corporate accountability.

-30-

For Immediate Release: Tuesday, April 8, 2014
For More Information Contact: Gary Ruskin (202) 387-8030

After GM Disaster, Nader & Groups Call for Criminal Liability for Hiding Product Dangers

In an effort to prevent deadly product safety disasters – such as the GM ignition switch failure — Ralph Nader, the Center for Progressive Reform and the Center for Corporate Policy called for enacting long-overdue criminal liability for product supervisors who know their products are dangerous or deadly, yet fail to tell federal regulators of these dangers.

Nader and the groups sent the letters today to the chairs and ranking members of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees, asking them to support legislation to require product supervisors to warn regulators and the public within fifteen days after a product danger is discovered, or immediately if there is an imminent risk of serious bodily injury or death.

The text of the letters follows.

Dear Senators Leahy and Grassley, and Representatives Goodlatte and Conyers:

This letter is a request that you introduce legislation to address fatal failures such as those by General Motors to warn the public and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) in timely fashion about ignition switch failures in its Cobalts and other GM models.  Such legislation is badly needed to ensure that such failures – and the deaths that come with them — do not happen again.

On February 13, 2014, General Motors announced a recall of about 778,000 of its cars due to an ignition switch failure.  That recall has now been expanded to nearly 2.5 million cars.[1]  At this time, the failure of the General Motors ignition systems is implicated in 303 deaths.[2]

Revealingly, nearly ten years before this recall, in November 2004, General Motors initiated an engineering inquiry to examine whether a 2005 Chevrolet Cobalt “can be keyed off with knee while driving.” In March, 2005 the Cobalt Project Engineering Manager closed this inquiry “with no action” because the “lead-time for all solutions is too long,” and the “tooling cost and piece price are too high” and that “[n]one of the solutions seems to fully countermeasure the possibility of the key being turned (ignition turned off) during driving.”  The Project Engineering Manager’s “directive” concludes that “none of the solutions represent an acceptable business case.”[3]

It is clear that this tragedy was mostly preventable if General Motors had properly warned NHTSA and the public at the outset of its documented suspicion of an engineering defect in its cars.

Several Members of Congress propose remedies for General Motors’ failure to warn NHTSA in timely fashion.  For example, Senators Edward Markey and Richard Blumenthal have introduced legislation requiring auto companies to provide NHTSA with key safety-related documents related to fatal auto crashes, including certain internal safety documents, insurance claims made against them, and information pertaining to lawsuits against them related to the crashes.[4]  The legislation would also require NHTSA to make this available to the public via the Internet.  Representative Henry Waxman has introduced legislation to require auto manufacturers to disclose additional information about fatal crashes, NHTSA to provide public notice of inspection and investigation activities, and auto manufacturers to have a U.S.-based senior executive certify the accuracy and completeness of responses to NHTSA’s requests pursuant to safety investigations.[5]

These approaches have merit within the context of auto safety, but they are inadequate because they address merely a narrow segment of the broader scope of the problem.  Thus far, Members of Congress and the media have largely viewed this General Motors ignition switch defect as a matter of auto safety.  Of course, it is that.  But it is so much more.

The General Motors ignition switch defect is the latest example of a grievous tradition in the history of multinational corporations: the failure to warn U.S. regulators of deadly product defects. This tradition includes, among many other tragedies, the Dalkon Shield, Ford Firestone tires, cigarettes, asbestos, Guidant heart defibrillators, Bayer’s Trasylol, Ford Pintos and Playtex Super-absorbent tampons, to name a few.  In March, an FBI investigation revealed that Toyota misled the public about one cause of unintended acceleration in some of its cars, and tried to hide a second cause from NHTSA.

This is the correct context in which to place the current General Motors ignition switch defect.

The failure to warn is a problem that potentially afflicts most manufacturers, not merely the auto industry.  Only a systematic solution will fix this systematic problem.  A good solution must be broad in scope.  The best solution lies in establishing incentives to strongly predispose corporate officials to promptly disclose product dangers to regulators and the public.

In the 111^th Congress, Rep. John Conyers introduced the Dangerous Products Warning Act,[6] which would require companies to warn employees, consumers and the appropriate federal regulators of any product or service that poses a serious danger to the public. The legislation would create criminal liability for product supervisors who knew of serious dangers but failed to warn federal regulators or affected parties.  Under this legislation, such warnings must be made within fifteen days after such discovery is made, or immediately if there is an imminent risk of serious bodily injury or death.

Such legislation would have saved countless American lives and prevented many injuries during the last fifty years, probably including those who died or were injured from the General Motors ignition switch defect.

We strongly urge you to introduce the Dangerous Products Warning Act in the 113th Congress, and to work diligently for its passage.

Sincerely,

Ralph Nader
Rena Steinzor, President, Center for Progressive Reform
Gary Ruskin, Director, Center for Corporate Policy

Nader and the groups sent the letters to Senator Pat Leahy, chairman of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary; Senator Chuck Grassley, ranking member of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary; Representative Bob Goodlatte

The full text of the letters is available at: http://www.corporatepolicy.org/2014/04/08/after-gm-disaster-nader-groups-call-for-criminal-liability-for-hiding-product-dangers/

-30-

Nader, Groups Ask USDOJ for Annual Report and Public Database on Corporate Crime

Ralph Nader, Public Citizen and the Center for Corporate Policy sent a letter today to Attorney General Eric Holder, urging the Justice Department to prepare an annual report and public database on corporate crime in the United States.

The letter states that: “Currently, the DOJ does not compile comprehensive data on corporate crime.  This is a notable oversight.  It is as if the Department of Education had no measures for how well our children learn, or if the U.S. Department of Agriculture had no idea of how much wheat or corn our farmers grew.”

The full text of the letter follows.

Dear Attorney General Holder:

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) is clear about the dangers posed by corporate crime.  In its strategic plan for fiscal years 2014-18, the DOJ states that economic crimes present “very severe threats to the United States’ economy” and that the “explosion of financial fraud over the past few years has threatened the Nation’s financial stability.”

To put the gravity of these threats in context, the Obama administration and DOJ have recognized that “threats to the U.S. economic system must be addressed with the same seriousness and sense of purpose that guide efforts to protect the safety of the Nation,” on which our military will spend more than one-half of a trillion dollars in fiscal year 2014.

In similar terms, DOJ calls health care fraud “one of the most destructive and widespread national challenges facing our country.”

To properly face these major threats, it is obvious that that DOJ should have more specific and timely ways to measure the incidence and severity of corporate crime, to determine whether its efforts against them are successful or not, and the many ways they might be improved.

Currently, the DOJ does not compile comprehensive data on corporate crime.  This is a notable oversight.  It is as if the Department of Education had no measures for how well our children learn, or if the U.S. Department of Agriculture had no idea of how much wheat or corn our farmers grew.

The failure to measure can lead to sloppy thinking, bad decisions and entrenched neglect.  We urge the DOJ to equip itself with the power afforded by measurement and data analysis.

For street crime, the FBI oversees the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program, which tracks data from over 18,000 local and state law enforcement agencies. The DOJ should launch a parallel program for corporate crime and law-breaking, including but not limited to antitrust and price-fixing, environmental crimes, financial crimes, overseas bribery, health care fraud, trade violations, labor and employment-related violations (discrimination and occupational injuries and death), consumer fraud and damage to consumer health and safety, and corporate tax fraud onshore and offshore. A pittance invested here will go a long way toward promoting more lawful corporate behavior and the critical public support DOJ needs for adequate enforcement budgets and stronger laws.

The DOJ should produce and maintain a corporate crime database.  This is an elemental form of accountability; street criminals have rapsheets; corporate law-breakers ought to have them too.  This could help to deter and punish such crime in many ways.  For example, prosecutors, regulators and judges could use the database to identify recidivist violators and to assess proper levels of sanction; procurement officials could use it to identify corporations that fail to meet the “responsible contractor” standard in the Federal Acquisition Regulation.  In addition, by making the database available online to the public for free, it would benefit countless journalists, criminologists, other scholars, investors, and other interested members of the public.

At a minimum, the corporate crime database should:

•          Be searchable by parent company, major subsidiaries, corporate official name, industry, type of crime, city, state, and date of crime.

•          Contain individual company data, including the number of civil, administrative and criminal enforcement actions brought against corporate defendants by government agencies involving a felony charge, misdemeanor, or civil charge where potential fines may be $1,000 or more.

•          Specify the agency bringing each charge, the charge, the name of the company charged (including the ultimate parent company), and the outcome of the action if any, including plea agreements, consent decrees, findings of innocence, convictions, and fines and other penalties.

In the 111th and 112th Congresses, Rep. John Conyers, ranking member of the House Committee on the Judiciary, introduced legislation titled the “Corporate Crime Database Act” (H.R. 6545 in 111th Congress, H.R. 323 in 112th Congress) to require the DOJ to establish and maintain such a database, and to make it available to the public via the Internet. Such proposals have been made by advocates for many years.

The DOJ should also issue an annual report on corporate crime.  At a minimum, the report should provide an estimate of the total annual cost of corporate crime in the United States. It should include not only costs of crimes committed by individuals against businesses and investors (white collar crime), but also the costs that corporate crime imposes on the rest of society, such as the trillions of dollars lost, and millions of Americans who lost their jobs, due to the mortgage fraud-induced financial crisis of 2008-9.

The report should present an analysis of trends in corporate crime and an explanation of the relative effectiveness of different sanctions. While the UCR does measure certain forms of white collar crime, it is far from a thorough treatment of corporate crime.

The DOJ’s annual corporate crime report should also tally data about prosecutions. This should include the number of cases referred to U.S. attorneys for prosecution each year by the FBI or other federal and state agencies, as well as the status and ultimate disposition

(i.e. how many referrals were prosecuted; how many prosecuted were found guilty; how many settled with deferred and non prosecution agreements; the magnitude and kind of penalties involved; how many cases settled).  It should also compile agency enforcement data, including the number, description, and status of investigations initiated by federal agencies (including the FBI, but also EPA, SEC, IRS, OSHA, CPSC, etc.)

More than one-third of a century has elapsed since the DOJ issued a thorough analysis of corporate crime in America (“Illegal Corporate Behavior”, October 1979.) We are well into the 21st century, databases are commonplace, but there is still no database of corporate crime in America.  Given your recognition of the tremendous costs of corporate crime to Americans, our household wealth and our economy, the DOJ absolutely must employ these most elementary tools of analysis and accountability without further delay.

Sincerely,

Ralph Nader
Robert Weissman, President, Public Citizen
Gary Ruskin, Director, Center for Corporate Policy

-30-

For Immediate Release: Wednesday, November 20, 2013
For More Information Contact: Gary Ruskin (202) 387-8030

Spooky Business: A New Report on Corporate Espionage Against Non-profits

Giant corporations are employing highly unethical or illegal tools of espionage against nonprofit organizations with near impunity, according to a new report by Essential Information.  The report, titled Spooky Business, documents how corporations hire shady investigative firms staffed with former employees of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), National Security Agency (NSA), US military, Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI), Secret Service and local police departments to target nonprofit organizations.

“Corporate espionage against nonprofit organizations is an egregious abuse of corporate power that is subverting democracy,” said Gary Ruskin, author of Spooky Business. “Who will rein in the forces of corporate lawlessness as they bear down upon nonprofit defenders of justice?”

Many of the world’s largest corporations and their trade associations — including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Walmart, Monsanto, Bank of America, Dow Chemical, Kraft, Coca-Cola, Chevron, Burger King, McDonald’s, Shell, BP, BAE, Sasol, Brown & Williamson and E.ON – have been linked to espionage or planned espionage against nonprofit organizations, activists and whistleblowers.

Many different types of nonprofit organizations have been targeted with corporate espionage, including environmental, anti-war, public interest, consumer, food safety, pesticide reform, nursing home reform, gun control, social justice, animal rights and arms control groups.

Corporations and their trade associations have been linked to a wide variety of espionage tactics against nonprofit organizations. The most prevalent tactic appears to be infiltration by posing a volunteer or journalist, to obtain information from a nonprofit.  But corporations have been linked to many other human, physical and electronic espionage tactics against nonprofits.  Many of these tactics are either highly unethical or illegal.

Founded in 1982 by Ralph Nader, Essential Information is a Washington, DC-based nonprofit, tax-exempt organization. It is involved in a variety of projects to promote corporate accountability, a more just economy, public health and a sustainable planet.  It has published a bi-monthly magazine, books and reports, sponsored conferences, provided writers with grants to pursue investigations, published daily news summaries, operated clearinghouses that disseminate information to grassroots organizations in the United States and developing countries worldwide, and has hosted scores of conferences focusing on government and corporate accountability.

More information about Essential Information is at www.essential.org, and about the Center for Corporate Policy at www.corporatepolicy.org.

The Spooky Business report is available at: http://www.corporatepolicy.org/spookybusiness.pdf.

-30-

But how?  Pearlstein’s suggestion that employee discontent will ultimately drive these and other changes might be true, even if there’s little populist clamor for such measures as the FTT (apart from enlightened unions like National Nurses United).

Softening up the underbelly of the beast is equally important:  CEOs must understand that getting behind these reforms is their civic duty:  They will not only help shore up the broader legitimacy that corporations themselves have lost, but  they’d better understand that the Occupy movement could be a faint harbinger of things to come, should they continue to shred the entire middle class.

But let’s face it:  Most CEOs have no  more sociological horse-sense than a Manhattan supermodel on a coke binge.  Popular discontent is clearly necessary for far-reaching changes, but it will also take a well-organized movement for economic justice to drive such productive (and non-violent) changes into the system.

That’s why we have a lot of work to do to raise broader awareness of the importance of corporate reforms.