Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Business Crimes Hotline
NEW YORK
SEC Reaches First FCPA-Related Non Prosecution Agreement with Ralph
Lauren Corp.
On April 22, 2013, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) (collectively, Government) separately announced that they had each reached agreements with Ralph Lauren Corporation in connection with parallel investigations into FCPA allegations at the New York-based clothing company. The SEC's Non Prosecution Agreement (NPA) represents the Commission's first FCPA-related NPA. The settlements principally arise from allegations of improper payments to Argentinean government officials as part of the customs clearance process for the company's merchandise over a five-year period. The payments, which were channeled through a customs agency that generated corresponding false invoices to cover the payments, were provided in exchange for avoiding inspection, securing necessary paperwork, clearing prohibited items, and clearing items without necessary paperwork.'
'
The DOJ noted that Ralph Lauren's Argentinean subsidiary did not have an anti-corruption program in place during the time of the alleged improper payments, but also discussed the company's significant efforts at investigation and remediation ' starting with a self-disclosure of the conduct. Ralph Lauren's investigative efforts included conducting a worldwide risk assessment and presenting the results of the same to the Government, while its “early and extensive” remediation efforts included enhancements to its due diligence protocols for third-party agents, as well as the appointment of a dedicated corporate compliance attorney.
In connection with the DOJ NPA settlement, Ralph Lauren agreed to pay a fine of $882,000. The SEC's settlement included a commitment by the company to pay a total of $734,846 in disgorgement and prejudgment interest.
'
'
SEC Reaches First FCPA-Related Non Prosecution Agreement with Ralph
Lauren Corp.
On April 22, 2013, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) (collectively, Government) separately announced that they had each reached agreements with
'
The DOJ noted that Ralph Lauren's Argentinean subsidiary did not have an anti-corruption program in place during the time of the alleged improper payments, but also discussed the company's significant efforts at investigation and remediation ' starting with a self-disclosure of the conduct. Ralph Lauren's investigative efforts included conducting a worldwide risk assessment and presenting the results of the same to the Government, while its “early and extensive” remediation efforts included enhancements to its due diligence protocols for third-party agents, as well as the appointment of a dedicated corporate compliance attorney.
In connection with the DOJ NPA settlement, Ralph Lauren agreed to pay a fine of $882,000. The SEC's settlement included a commitment by the company to pay a total of $734,846 in disgorgement and prejudgment interest.
'
'
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?