Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
FCPA Enforcement In A Sarbanes-Oxley World
American companies and their officers and employees doing business overseas are learning the hard way about the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA). For many years after its enactment in 1977, the government initiated relatively few investigations and enforcement actions charging violations of the Act. This was largely due to the government's difficulties in evidence gathering. Recently, however, the number of such enforcement actions has increased significantly.
A prime example of this increased interest in prosecution is the SEC's 2004 case against Schering-Plough Corporation. In Schering-Plough, the SEC charged the company with violating the books and records and internal control provisions of the FCPA in connection with payments its Polish subsidiary made to a legitimate charity affiliated with a Polish governmental official. The SEC found that the company made payments totaling $76,000 in an attempt to influence the official to use his authority as the director of a Polish health authority to promote the purchase of Schering-Plough's pharmaceutical products. Because Schering-Plough failed to properly record the payments, the SEC charged the company with violating the books and records provisions of the FCPA. Further, because the company's system of internal controls failed to detect or prevent the improper payments, the SEC found that the company violated the internal control provisions of the FCPA as well. In settling the case, Schering-Plough was ordered to cease and desist from committing or causing any violation, and any future violation of the books and records and internal control provisions of the FCPA. Further, the SEC required the company to retain an independent consultant to evaluate the company's internal controls and issue a report to the Government. Finally, the company was forced to pay a $500,000 fine.
Outside Impact
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.
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.
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.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
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.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.