Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Global Corruption Enforcement
For multinational corporations, reducing the risks and concomitant expenses associated with corrupt employee behavior must be a priority. In today's environment, counsel, directors and management must recognize that companies can no longer rely on the mere existence of a compliance program and code of conduct. This article discusses the benefits of embedding compliance doctrine within operations, and how businesses could market integrity and compliance to gain a competitive advantage.
Expansion into markets with challenging regulatory systems poses added risks to companies subject to the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), 15 U.S.C. ” 78dd-1, et. seq. Whether driven through acquisition or organic growth, expansion demands extra attention and expertise by specialized counsel. In 2014, companies should prepare for enhanced U.S. and German enforcement efforts. Mere identification of issues after expansion, however, will be insufficient to minimize risk and deal with enforcement.
The disruption and cost of internal investigations standing alone make counsel with foresight a tremendous value. Over the past decade, the standard practice has been to institute a “letter-of-the-law” compliance program rather than designing integrated compliance protocols that are specific to businesses operations. Unfortunately, many of these compliance programs have left businesses vulnerable to “work around” cultures where operators quickly find ways to avoid compliance processes. For example, if a company sets a monetary limit that requires legal or compliance approval, the company should monitor how many transactions occur right below the limit in ensuing periods.
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?