Jessica Tillipman | Senior Editor
Jessica Tillipman is a senior editor of the FCPA Blog.
She’s the Assistant Dean for Field Placement and Professorial Lecturer in Law at The George Washington University Law School. In addition to managing the law school’s large externship program, she teaches a Government Contracts Anti-Corruption & Compliance Seminar that focuses on anti-corruption, ethics and compliance issues in government procurement. She also advises companies on anti-corruption compliance issues.
Prior to joining GW Law, Dean Tillipman was an associate in Jenner & Block’s Washington, DC office, where she was member of the firm’s Government Contracts and White Collar Criminal Defense and Counseling practice groups. She joined Jenner & Block after serving as a law clerk to the Honorable Lawrence S. Margolis of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.
Dean Tillipman is a Senior Editor of the “The FCPA Blog” — a leading Foreign Corrupt Practices Act resource on the internet. She has also published articles on various government contracts and white collar topics, including the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, suspension and debarment, and government ethics in The George Washington University International Law Review, Fordham Law Review Res Gestae, the Public Contract Law Journal, Public Procurement Law Review, and Thomson Reuter’s Briefing Papers.
Her legal commentary has been featured in numerous international media outlets, including CNN, ESPN, The Washington Post, Slate, Buzzfeed, and the Associated French Press.
Dean Tillipman graduated cum laude from Miami University in Oxford, OH and obtained her JD, with honors, from George Washington University Law School.
I recently sat down with Vincente Martinez, Director of the CFTC Whistleblower Office (WBO), who graciously agreed to answer some of my questions about the WBO.
[Editor’s note: Jessica Tillipman of the George Washington University Law School asked her fellow FCPA Blog editors for recommendations of anti-corruption, compliance, and enforcement sites. The responses became yesterday’s post. She also sent around her own list, and graciously permitted the FCPA Blog to publish it. It appears below. — rlc]
Critics said offering a whistleblower reward without requiring employees to report internally would undermine company compliance programs. New surveys demonstrate that these concerns may be overblown.
As noted in FAR 9.406-1(a), “It is the debarring official’s responsibility to determine whether debarment is in the Government’s interest . . . [t]he existence of a cause for debarment, however, does not necessarily require that the contractor be debarred.”
Now that we have firmly established that neither suspension nor debarment may be used to “punish” contractors, let’s go over the mechanics of FAR 9.4.
As contractors like BAE and Siemens have settled large (FCPA-related) enforcement actions with the U.S. Government, there has been an epidemic of misleading and erroneous statements made about the role of suspension and debarment in the FCPA context.
This is the first post in a series that will provide a broad overview of the U.S. administrative S&D regime, a discussion of recent legislative activity, and information about comparable debarment regimes that may also be triggered by the bribery of foreign government officials.
There’s a reason why you don’t see many of the biggest U.S.-based government contractors on the FCPA top ten list (e.g., Lockheed, General Dynamics, Raytheon, Northrup, Boeing, etc.).
No company, regardless of its size or industry, is immune from potential FCPA liability if it does business abroad. Why then, has “FCPA Sanctions: Too Big to Debar” by Drury Stevenson and Nicholas Wagoner, singled-out and declared war on large government contractors? Because it can—large government contractors are not sympathetic.