Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The U.S. Department of Justice's November 2019 trial conviction of Lawrence Hoskins, a UK citizen employed by the French energy company Alstom, for violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) drew increased attention to the global reach of U.S. law and DOJ policy in pursuing targets who have had little or no contact with the United States. The Hoskins case highlighted the manner by which the DOJ (and the SEC, which has civil enforcement jurisdiction under the FCPA) can harness the common-law doctrine of agency to expand the reach of the statute.
There are two primary legal concepts U.S. companies operating overseas need to understand with respect to agency and its relevance to the FCPA. First, the text of the statute makes the "agents" of U.S. issuers and U.S.-based companies liable. As the government has interpreted it, this means that the foreign subsidiaries (and employees or other third parties acting for those subsidiaries) of a U.S. company can be charged under the statute where the parent entity exercises sufficient control over their conduct, even if they would be otherwise outside the jurisdiction of U.S. law. Second, the related common-law doctrine of respondeat superior makes companies liable for the acts of their agents, if those acts are taken in the scope of their agency and for the benefit of the principal. As the government has applied the doctrine in this context, if a foreign subsidiary of a U.S. company has violated the FCPA, and if the subsidiary is deemed the "agent" of the company, the U.S. company may be charged directly as well, even if U.S. personnel had no knowledge of or involvement in the misconduct. Despite the profound effect that these two concepts — agency and respondeat superior — can have on the scope of FCPA jurisdiction, the courts have just begun to grapple with their application and limits.
In brief, the FCPA forbids bribe payments to foreign government officials. To limit interference with foreign jurisdictions arising from its extraterritorial application, and to provide fair notice to potential defendants, Congress delineated specific categories of individuals and entities subject to FCPA jurisdiction. The FCPA subjects the following to penalties for wrongful conduct under the statute: 1) foreign persons who have committed violations while in the United States; 2) U.S. citizens, nationals, and residents; 3) companies that have issued publicly traded securities in the United States or have reporting obligations under the Securities Exchange Act; and 4) companies organized under the laws of, or with their principal place of business in, the United States. For these latter two categories, jurisdiction extends to a U.S. company's officers, directors, employees, agents and stockholders acting on the company's behalf, regardless of whether violations occur in the United States or abroad. 15 U.S.C. §§78dd-1, 778d-2.
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.
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?
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.