Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
SEC Freezes Assets of Thailand Trader
On June 6, 2013, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) obtained an emergency court order to freeze the assets of Badin Rungruangnavarat, a Bangkok, Thailand-based trader, in connection with the recently announced $4.7 billion acquisition of Smithfield Foods (Smithfield) by China-based Shuanghui International (Shuanghui). Smithfield is the world's largest pork producer and processor and Shuanghui's acquisition is the largest of a U.S. company by a Chinese buyer.
According to the SEC, Rungruangnavarat allegedly profited more than $3 million by trading before the May 29 public announcement of the acquisition. Between May 21 and May 28, Rungruangnavarat purchased thousands of out-of-the-money Smithfield call options and single-stock future contracts using his account with Interactive Brokers, LLC. These purchases ' allegedly based on material, nonpublic information ' are linked to Rungruangnavarat's Facebook friend, an associate director at an investment bank associated with the Smithfield acquisition. On June 3, Rungruangnavarat attempted to withdraw more than $3 million from his account, prompting the court-ordered asset freeze. Specifically, the order freezes the proceeds from Rungruangnavarat's securities purchases, grants expedited discovery, and prohibits him from destroying evidence. In addition to the order, the SEC is seeking disgorgement with prejudgment interest, a financial penalty, and a permanent injunction.
VIRGINIA
Total S.A. Reaches $398 Million FCPA Settlement
On May 29, 2013, Total S.A. (Total) reached a $398 million settlement with the Department of Justice (DOJ) and SEC for violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA). As part of the settlement, the French oil and gas company will pay a $245.2 million criminal penalty and disgorge $153 million. The disgorgement figure is the second largest in the history of FCPA enforcement.
According to the Government, Total paid $16 million in improper payments to the intermediary for an Iranian official under a supposed consulting agreement in 1995. The purpose of the improper payments was to secure a contract for Total with the National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC) to develop the Sirri A and E oil and gas fields. Additionally, in 1997, Total sought to negotiate a contract with NIOC to develop a portion of the world's largest gas field, the South Pars field. Accordingly, Total entered into another purported consulting agreement with a second intermediary for the same Iranian official. The second agreement included a $44 million improper payment.
'
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
SEC Freezes Assets of Thailand Trader
On June 6, 2013, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) obtained an emergency court order to freeze the assets of Badin Rungruangnavarat, a Bangkok, Thailand-based trader, in connection with the recently announced $4.7 billion acquisition of
According to the SEC, Rungruangnavarat allegedly profited more than $3 million by trading before the May 29 public announcement of the acquisition. Between May 21 and May 28, Rungruangnavarat purchased thousands of out-of-the-money Smithfield call options and single-stock future contracts using his account with Interactive Brokers, LLC. These purchases ' allegedly based on material, nonpublic information ' are linked to Rungruangnavarat's Facebook friend, an associate director at an investment bank associated with the Smithfield acquisition. On June 3, Rungruangnavarat attempted to withdraw more than $3 million from his account, prompting the court-ordered asset freeze. Specifically, the order freezes the proceeds from Rungruangnavarat's securities purchases, grants expedited discovery, and prohibits him from destroying evidence. In addition to the order, the SEC is seeking disgorgement with prejudgment interest, a financial penalty, and a permanent injunction.
On May 29, 2013,
According to the Government, Total paid $16 million in improper payments to the intermediary for an Iranian official under a supposed consulting agreement in 1995. The purpose of the improper payments was to secure a contract for Total with the National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC) to develop the Sirri A and E oil and gas fields. Additionally, in 1997, Total sought to negotiate a contract with NIOC to develop a portion of the world's largest gas field, the South Pars field. Accordingly, Total entered into another purported consulting agreement with a second intermediary for the same Iranian official. The second agreement included a $44 million improper payment.
'
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
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
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 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.
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.
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.
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?