Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Avoiding FCPA Liability by Tightening Internal Controls
In early May of this year, Avon Products, Inc. (Avon) announced that it expected to pay $135 million to end long-standing federal probes of alleged violations of Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) provisions relating to books and records, and internal controls. According to its securities filing, the settlement requires the global beauty product company to pay $68 million to the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and $67 million to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). While this amount is larger than an earlier proposed $12 million settlement, it pales in comparison to the estimated $340 million already spent for an internal investigation and legal fees. Additional costs may arise, depending on the findings of a compliance monitor, who will be installed for at least 18 months.
Avon is not alone in paying big money to settle FCPA allegations with various federal regulatory organizations. This is just another example of a company paying out significant amounts to the DOJ and SEC as part of an FCPA settlement that arose out of lack of internal controls. In April 2014, Hewlett-Packard Company agreed to pay $108 million in fines, penalties, and disgorgements in an FCPA settlement regarding its subsidiaries in three countries allegedly making improper payments to government officials to obtain or retain lucrative public contracts. In January 2014, Alcoa agreed to pay $384 million to settle alleged violations of the FCPA relating to its subsidiaries purportedly paying bribes to government officials in Bahrain to maintain a key source of business.
Anyone expecting a diminution of activity is in for a rude surprise. In 2010, the SEC announced the creation of a specialized unit to police FCPA violations. In 2014 alone, the DOJ has initiated a number of new enforcement inquiries. Concern about illegal payments of bribes to non-U.S. government officials by businesses and fraudulent reporting practices is taking center stage in mergers and acquisitions as well. The last thing a buyer wants is to inherit an expensive FCPA problem that did not show up as part of deal due diligence.
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.
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.
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.
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?