The challenge for U.S. actors is how to comply with the law in the dynamic world of economic sanctions. This article tries to help by pointing out challenging (or “hot”) current issues and making suggestions about compliance strategies that in-house counsel can leverage to address the most challenging compliance issues.
<b><i>Will Your Company Be Prepared?</b></i><p>FATCA is an effort by the United States to curb tax evasion and incentivize Foreign Financial Institutions (FFI) to report the overseas assets of U.S. persons. The U.S. encourages compliance by imposing a 30% withholding penalty on all U.S. source income and sale proceeds of non-compliant foreign financial institutions.
<b><i>SCOTUS Review of Dodd-Frank to Change the Landscape</b></i><p>On June 26, 2017, the Supreme Court granted <i>certiorari</i> in <i>Digital Realty Trust Inc. v. Somers</i> to review a Ninth Circuit decision regarding SEC whistleblowing protections. The Court's ruling is highly anticipated, as it will clarify the landscape for whistleblower protections.
<b><i>An Exploration of the Modern Cyberespionage Threat and How In-House Legal Departments Are Fighting Back</b></i><p>Though faced with limited legal remedies, counsel are coming up with creative new ways to go after cyberespionage actors, and partnering with an array of cyber professionals and government agencies to combat the threat.
Each year, the U.S. government secures more than 1,200 money-laundering convictions. Now, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), at least, is setting its sights with renewed vigor on those who help criminal organizations and terrorists conceal billions in illicit funds.
When a building or lot is taken through eminent domain, the value of the property often becomes a matter of dispute between the government and the owner. What if the property had the potential to become more developed?
“Baseball arbitration” refers to the process used in Major League Baseball in which if an eligible player's representative and the club ownership cannot reach a compensation agreement through negotiation, each party enters a final submission and during a formal hearing each side — player and management — presents its case and then the designated panel of arbitrators chooses one of the salary bids with no other result being allowed. This method has become increasingly popular even beyond the sport of baseball.
Insiders (and others) in the private equity business are accustomed to seeing a good deal of discussion ' academic and trade ' on the question of the appropriate methods of valuing private equity positions and securities which are otherwise illiquid. An interesting recent decision in the Southern District has been brought to our attention. The case is <i>In Re Allied Capital Corp.</i>, CCH Fed. SEC L. Rep. 92411 (US DC, S.D.N.Y., Apr. 25, 2003). Judge Lynch's decision is well written, the Judge reviewing a motion to dismiss by a business development company, Allied Capital, against a strike suit claiming that Allied's method of valuing its portfolio failed adequately to account for i) conditions at the companies themselves and ii) market conditions. The complaint appears to be, as is often the case, slap dash, content to point out that Allied revalued some of its positions, marking them down for a variety of reasons, and the stock price went down - all this, in the view of plaintiff's counsel, amounting to violations of Rule 10b-5.
The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
There is no efficient market for the sale of bankruptcy assets. Inefficient markets yield a transactional drag, potentially dampening the ability of debtors and trustees to maximize value for creditors. This article identifies ways in which investors may more easily discover bankruptcy asset sales.
With trillions of dollars to keep watch over, the last thing we need is the distraction of costly litigation brought on by patent assertion entities (PAEs or "patent trolls"), companies that don't make any products but instead seek royalties by asserting their patents against those who do make products.
