Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Foreign Companies Prosecuted in the U.S. for Bribes Overseas
In an effort to level the playing field for U.S. businesses overseas, many OECD countries adopted the Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions in 1998. Nearly 10 years later, the main result may have been to enlarge the playing field of U.S. law enforcement. As discussed in Michael E. Clark's companion article on the left, the 1998 amendments expanding jurisdiction of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) were just the start of what catapulted the FCPA to the forefront of today's business risks. Foreign subsidiaries of U.S. companies not otherwise subject to the FCPA are now being indicted as 'agents' of their U.S. affiliates. Meanwhile, some foreign companies, wondering whether listing on a U.S. exchange is worth it, are looking around for a new league.
Chilling Effect on U.S. Listing
Last year, the DOJ announced its first criminal enforcement action against a foreign issuer for violating the FCPA. See Press Release #06-700, U.S. Resolves Probe Against Oil Company that Bribed Iranian Official (Oct. 13, 2006). No mere SEC sanction for books-and-records violations, this was a U.S. criminal prosecution for payments overseas, by a foreign company, in violation of FCPA ' 30. United States v. Statoil, ASA, 06 Cr. 960 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 13, 2006). 'Although Statoil is a foreign issuer,' said Assistant Attorney General Alice Fisher in the DOJ press release, the FCPA 'applies to foreign and domestic public companies alike, where the company's stock trades on American exchanges.' The deferred prosecution included a $10.5 million penalty, further disgorgement of an additional $10.5 million, and compliance monitoring for three years, all in addition to a $3 million fine levied by Norway. Fisher warned that the DOJ is committed to enforce the FCPA vigorously 'against all international businesses whose conduct falls within its scope.'
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?