Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Wining and Dining Foreign Officials: What's OK and What's a Crime
In December 2007, Lucent Technologies Inc. secured a non-prosecution agreement from the Department of Justice (DOJ) and settled an enforcement action with the SEC for conduct related to travel and entertainment expenses incurred on behalf of Chinese government officials and for the manner in which these expenses were booked. The Lucent settlement adds to a number of existing guideposts regarding permissible interactions with foreign officials under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA). This article examines the Lucent settlement, prior FCPA enforcement activity related to travel and lodging, and offers some practical advice for compliance counsel.
Reasonable and Bona Fide Expenses
The FCPA prohibits the bribery of foreign officials and efforts to obscure that conduct on the books and records of public companies. Specifically, the FCPA's anti-bribery provisions prohibit offers, payments, promises or authorizations to pay, any money or thing of value to any foreign official for purposes of influencing any act or decision in order to obtain or retain business. The accounting provisions require that public companies make and keep accurate books and records, and maintain internal controls sufficient, for example, to ensure that transactions are recorded as necessary to permit preparation of financial statements in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles.
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.