Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Repairing the Foreign Agents Registration Act
Until recently, the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA or the Act) was a curious historical and legal artifact with little contemporary relevance. Passed in 1938 in order to prevent a "fifth column" of Nazi supporters from secretly advocating on behalf of Hitler's Germany, Congress enacted FARA in order to require "agents of foreign principals who might engage in subversive acts or spreading foreign propaganda" to register with the Department of Justice. Viereck v. United States, 318 U.S. 236, 241 (1943). For decades, the statute laid dormant, with only seven criminal FARA cases initiated between 1966 and 2015. See, Office of the Inspector General, Department of Justice, Audit Division 16-24, Audit of the National Security Division's enforcement and Administration of the Foreign Agents Registration Act, at 8 (September 2016). In recent years, however, mostly due to the well-publicized prosecution of Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort, FARA has become more of a focus for federal prosecutors. As a result, white-collar attorneys have been consulted more often about whether particular conduct requires registration under the Act.
Lawyers and clients alike have been surprised by FARA's breadth and reach, apparently requiring registration in a host of contexts in which there is no real "agency" relationship between the registrant and the so-called "foreign principal." Given the stigma sometimes associated with registration as an agent of a foreign principal and the logistical burden of registering, many clients would prefer to avoid engaging in certain conduct if that conduct would require FARA registration.
FARA and its implementing regulations are broadly written, with vague and undefined terms complicating the analysis of whether registration is required. With limited FARA litigation, there are very few judicial decisions that clarify the distinction between conduct that requires registration and conduct that is outside the Act's reach. The Department of Justice, however, offers some useful guidance. First, DOJ publishes FARA FAQs on its website. Second, DOJ will respond to written requests for advice about whether registration is required in a given case, and, from time to time, it will publish its responses as advisory opinions on its website in redacted form, organized by particular subject area (such as FARA's various exemptions). While these advisory opinions are useful, they contain little factual detail and sometimes seem to offer inconsistent advice based on similar factual narratives.
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?