Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
No More 'Free Pass' for Foreign Citizens
When a US company settles a criminal antitrust case by pleading guilty, the Justice Department (DOJ) now usually requires that at least one executive receive a prison sentence. But what about foreign companies? In the past, DOJ often prosecuted foreign companies, but not foreign executives. Prosecution of foreign executives raised questions of diplomacy, since the United States until recently was the only nation that made antitrust violations a crime. Then there was the practical problem of how to arrest a foreign citizen overseas. Besides, the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) policy was to deport non-violent, non-US citizens instead of housing them at US taxpayers' expense, and the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) barred foreign felons from the country.
The practical result of these collective DOJ policies was that a foreign citizen could conspire in price fixing that harmed the U.S. economy without risk of imprisonment. This began to change in 1994 when a Canadian who participated in a North American price fixing conspiracy went to jail in the US. Rumor has it that the BOP at first refused to admit the Canadian when he turned himself in at the United States Prison at Lewisburg, PA, so he spent his first night of “incarceration” at a local Holiday Inn, for which he received credit in his sentence.
Foreign Citizens Now Accountable
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?