Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Business Crimes Hotline
TEXAS
Orthofix Reaches Combined FCPA Settlement
On July 10, Orthofix International N.V. reached a settlement with the DOJ and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), in connection with Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) investigations of the Texas-based orthopedic-products manufacturer. As part of the agreement, which is awaiting court approval, Orthofix agreed to enter into a three-year deferred prosecution agreement with the DOJ, a corresponding civil consent with the SEC, as well as payment of $7.4 million. The settlement resolves FCPA allegations from 2003 until 2010.
According to the Indictment, Orthofix's Mexican subsidiary, Promeca S.A. de C.V., bribed Mexican government officials in the Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social, a public healthcare and social services institution. In particular, the subsidiary referred to the bribes as “chocolates” in its communications. Rather than confections, the items provided were cash, laptop computers, televisions, and appliances. The value of the “chocolates” totaled around $317,000. Further, the Complaint alleged that the payments were falsely recorded on Orthofix's books as either cash advances or training and promotions expenses, violating Sections 13(b)(2)(A'B) of the Securities Exchange Act.
Of the $7.4 million payment, $5,225,701 is disgorgement and prejudgment interest, with the remaining $2,220,000 portion representing the fine. The settlement did not include appointment of an independent external monitor.
VIRGINIA
DS&S Agrees to $8.82 Million Criminal Penalty
The DOJ's Criminal Division filed a two-count Information on June 18 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia against Data Systems & Solutions LLC (DS&S or the Company) for conspiring to violate and violating the FCPA. The charges against DS&S, which provides services for nuclear and fossil fuel power plants, including design, installation and maintenance, stemmed from contracts with Ignalia Nuclear Power Plant, a state-owned power plant in Lithuania. To resolve the charges, the Company agreed to pay an $8.82 million penalty and enter into a two-year deferred prosecution agreement.
According to the government, DS&S offered and paid bribes to the Director General of Ignalia and at least four other officials through several methods, including the funding of trips to Florida and Hawaii, above-market payments to a subcontractor owned by a senior Ignalia official, and payments for subcontractor modifications that were never to be performed. In exchange, DS&S received multiple contracts between 1999 and 2004, with a total value exceeding $35 million. The officials influenced the award of contracts by recommending DS&S, providing DS&S with inside information about the contracts and competitors, and by tailoring project designs for DS&S.
The DOJ noted DS&S's “extraordinary” cooperation; specifically, that the Company conducted an “extensive, thorough and swift” internal investigation, provided substantial evidence and information, terminated the responsible employees, and improved company polices and training programs to ensure greater compliance and detection in the future.
Business Crimes Hotline and In the Courts were written by Kirkland & Ellis, LLP, Summer Associate Christian Ascunce.
TEXAS
Orthofix Reaches Combined FCPA Settlement
On July 10, Orthofix International N.V. reached a settlement with the DOJ and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), in connection with Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) investigations of the Texas-based orthopedic-products manufacturer. As part of the agreement, which is awaiting court approval, Orthofix agreed to enter into a three-year deferred prosecution agreement with the DOJ, a corresponding civil consent with the SEC, as well as payment of $7.4 million. The settlement resolves FCPA allegations from 2003 until 2010.
According to the Indictment, Orthofix's Mexican subsidiary, Promeca S.A. de C.V., bribed Mexican government officials in the Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social, a public healthcare and social services institution. In particular, the subsidiary referred to the bribes as “chocolates” in its communications. Rather than confections, the items provided were cash, laptop computers, televisions, and appliances. The value of the “chocolates” totaled around $317,000. Further, the Complaint alleged that the payments were falsely recorded on Orthofix's books as either cash advances or training and promotions expenses, violating Sections 13(b)(2)(A'B) of the Securities Exchange Act.
Of the $7.4 million payment, $5,225,701 is disgorgement and prejudgment interest, with the remaining $2,220,000 portion representing the fine. The settlement did not include appointment of an independent external monitor.
DS&S Agrees to $8.82 Million Criminal Penalty
The DOJ's Criminal Division filed a two-count Information on June 18 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
According to the government, DS&S offered and paid bribes to the Director General of Ignalia and at least four other officials through several methods, including the funding of trips to Florida and Hawaii, above-market payments to a subcontractor owned by a senior Ignalia official, and payments for subcontractor modifications that were never to be performed. In exchange, DS&S received multiple contracts between 1999 and 2004, with a total value exceeding $35 million. The officials influenced the award of contracts by recommending DS&S, providing DS&S with inside information about the contracts and competitors, and by tailoring project designs for DS&S.
The DOJ noted DS&S's “extraordinary” cooperation; specifically, that the Company conducted an “extensive, thorough and swift” internal investigation, provided substantial evidence and information, terminated the responsible employees, and improved company polices and training programs to ensure greater compliance and detection in the future.
Business Crimes Hotline and In the Courts were written by
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.