Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Business Crimes Hotline
Petrobras Pays $853.2 Million to U.S. and Brazil Authorities to Settle FCPA Charges
In March 2014, Brazilian authorities launched an investigation known as Operation Car Wash (or Lava Jato in Portuguese). Operation Car Wash initially began as a money laundering investigation of black market money dealers (doleiros), who used small businesses to launder criminal profits. As the investigation developed, Operation Car Wash uncovered pervasive corruption and bribery at Petróleo Brasileiro S.A. (Petrobras), the Brazilian state-owned oil company. The doleiros acted on behalf of — and at the direction of — Petrobras managers and executives (including members of the Board of Directors) who overpaid on contracts with companies, in order to funnel a percentage of deals to slush funds for politicians and political parties and keep the officials in power within Petrobras. To-date, hundreds of legislators, governors, mayors, political bosses, and business executives — including the former president — have been implicated, arrested, and/or convicted as part of the scheme in which billions of dollars in improper payments are suspected to have been made.
The Sept. 27, 2018, global settlement resolves charges with the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) developed as part of the U.S. government's investigation into Petrobras — working in close collaboration with the Brazilian authorities. This resolution follows the December 2016 resolution where Odrebrecht S.A. and Braskem S.A. pleaded guilty to Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) violations related to Operation Car Wash. As a result, the two Brazilian companies agreed to pay $3.6 billion in monetary penalties to authorities in the United States, Brazil, and Switzerland.
The Petrobras three-year Non-Prosecution Agreement with the DOJ reflects a reduction in the monetary penalty consistent with the company's significant remediation and its cooperation after learning of the allegations of misconduct, albeit without voluntary disclosure.
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?