Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
'Red Flags and Iceberg Tips'
Congress and the Department of Justice (DOJ) are driving home an important point: A company's central management is ultimately responsible for any criminal conduct by its business divisions and employees, and must therefore implement policies and procedures to ensure that it promptly discovers and corrects any potential violations.
The Sarbanes-Oxley Act requires 'up-the-ladder' reporting by and within a company's legal department of suspected violations of law, to ensure that central management becomes aware of material violations and remedies them. See Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, ' 307, Pub. L. No. 107-204, 116 Stat. 745, 784. Meanwhile, the DOJ recently issued 'Principles of Federal Prosecution of Business Organizations.' (Available on the U.S. Department of Justice Web site at http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00162.htm.)
The DOJ Principles explain that the likelihood a corporation will face criminal prosecution depends upon, among other things, 1) pervasiveness of criminal conduct within the corporation, including the extent to which central management was aware of and/or condoned any wrongdoing; 2) the corporation's history of criminal conduct; 3) the corporation's timely and voluntary and disclosure of wrongdoing and willingness to cooperate; 4) the existence and adequacy of compliance programs; and 5) the corporation's remedial efforts, including discipline of responsible individuals. Taken together, these factors make clear that central management must quickly come to grips with any criminal violation, and that it will ultimately bear the responsibility for the failure to do so.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?