Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Liability of U.S. Companies for Alleged Bribery By Foreign Subsidiaries
The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) provides two avenues by which a U.S. concern can be prosecuted for improper payments to foreign officials: the anti-bribery provisions, and the books-and-records and internal-control provisions. Somewhat unclear, however, is the kind of involvement in a foreign subsidiary a U.S. parent must have such that it might be exposed to criminal or civil enforcement. This article explores liability for misconduct of foreign subsidiaries and what preventive measures a parent can take.
Anti-Bribery Provisions
It is a violation for a domestic concern to corruptly offer any payment, gift or thing of value to any foreign official for the purpose of influencing any act or decision of the foreign official or securing any improper advantage or to any other person “while knowing” that some or all of the payment will be passed on to a foreign official for the improper purposes enumerated. 15 U.S.C. ' 78dd-2(a). The FCPA does not expressly address payments by a foreign subsidiary. The original Senate Report explains that the prohibition “would not cover payments by foreign nationals acting solely on behalf of foreign subsidiaries … where the issuer, reporting company or domestic concern had no knowledge of the payment.” S. Rep. No. 114 95th Cong., 1st Sess. (1977), at 11 (emphasis added). However, the Report warns that the parent may not look the other way in an effort to insulate itself from a subsidiary's misconduct. Parent liability ultimately depends on “all the facts and circumstances.”
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.
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.
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.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?