Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Anticorruption Enforcement In Brazil
Editor's Note: Last month, the authors discussed the rise in high-profile corruption investigations in Brazil, the most glaring example of which is the Petrobras scandal, which is currently sweeping up corporations and politicians alike in its wake. Considering this increased emphasis on rooting out corruption, the authors noted it would be wise for companies operating in Brazil to pay careful attention to their operations there, to ensure compliance with Brazilian and other countries laws. That discussion concludes herein.
Companies operating in Brazil, and their in-house and outside counsel, have been watching its anticorruption enforcement environment evolve ever since Brazil's new Clean Companies Act came into effect on Jan. 29, 2014. The Act brought with it a new wave of anticorruption implications for companies operating in one of the largest economies in the world, with potential for civil or administrative liability for a wide range of corrupt activities. That can include fines of up to 20% of a company's gross revenue for the fiscal year ending prior to the initiation of the investigation, forcing a company to relinquish any benefits received from the illegal conduct, limiting a company from participating in public bidding processes or even forcing dissolution.
Like similar anticorruption laws, such as the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) and the UK Bribery Act, the Clean Companies Act has an international impact, allowing Brazilian enforcement agencies to enforce the law against acts occurring inside and outside Brazil, and against Brazilian companies and foreign companies with a registered office, affiliate or branch in Brazil. Although the Clean Companies Act brings strict liability and does not provide for a UK Bribery Act-style “adequate procedures” defense that could eliminate fines altogether, companies are able to mitigate potential fines based on cooperation and the existence of an effective compliance program.
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?