Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Complying with the FCPA in Emerging Markets After SOX
One of the current top priorities of the Department of Justice ('DOJ') and SEC is enforcing the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA or the 'Act'). The FCPA was enacted in 1977 after over 400 publicly traded U.S. corporations admitted to the SEC that, collectively, they had made over $300 million in illegal or questionable payments to foreign government officials, politicians, and political parties. The Act was amended in 1998, and its reach was further expanded to correspond with the 'OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Trans- actions' adopted by 30 OECD members and five additional countries. After the enactment of Sarbanes-Oxley ('SOX') in 2002, disclosures of FCPA violations increased dramatically. 'In 2004, the SEC and DOJ brought the largest number of FCPA enforcement actions ever and have imposed record level fines accompanied by an unprecedented variety of additional criminal and civil sanctions.' Aaron G. Murphy, The Migratory Patterns of Business in the Global Village, 2 N.Y.U. J. L. & Bus. 229, 256 (2005).
The recent settlement of parallel FCPA actions in the Southern District of Texas against Baker Hughes, Inc., a major oilfield service company, and its wholly owned subsidiary Baker Hughes Services International Inc. (collectively 'Baker Hughes'), underscores the importance of complying with the FCPA's provisions in emerging markets. Over $4 million in bribes was paid to a consulting firm that was Baker Hughes' agent for a major oil field services contract. Baker Hughes knew that its agent would transfer funds to an official with the state-owned oil company of Kazakhstan, a country with enormous oil reserves. To resolve the actions, Baker Hughes paid $44 million in combined fines and penalties ' the largest sanction ever imposed in an FCPA case.
FCPA Mechanics
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.
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?