Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Business Crimes Hotline
Tyco Resolves DOJ and SEC FCPA Enforcement Action
On Sept. 24, Tyco International Ltd. (Tyco) resolved enforcement actions by the DOJ and the SEC for alleged violations of the FCPA. Fines and penalties totaled over $26 million ($13.68 in the DOJ enforcement action and over $13 million in the SEC enforcement action). As part of the resolution, Tyco Valves & Controls Middle East Inc. (TVC ME), an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of Tyco, plead guilty before U.S. District Judge Claude M. Hilton of conspiring to violate the FCPA in the Eastern District of Virginia, and Tyco entered into a related non prosecution agreement (NPA) with the DOJ.
TVC ME marketed and sold industrial equipment throughout the Middle East for various oil, gas, petrochemical, commercial construction, water treatment, and desalination industries. According to the criminal information, TVC ME, along with others, bribed employees of end-customers in Saudi Arabia, the U.A.E., and Iran, including employees of Saudi Aramco, Emirates National Oil Company, Vopak Horizon Fujairah, and the National Iranian Gas Company, in order to retain business. TVC ME improperly recorded bribe payments in its books, records and accounts, describing the payments as consultancy costs, commissions, or equipment costs. At sentencing, the court ordered TVC ME to pay $2.1 million, which was included in the overall $13.68 million penalty against Tyco.
According to the NPA, in addition to the $26 million payment, Tyco must continue to implement an enhanced compliance program and internal controls designed to prevent and detect future FCPA violations. Tyco must also report annually to the DOJ over the next three years, but is not required to retain an external compliance monitor.
Business Crimes Hotline and In the Courts were written by Christian E. Izaguirre and Associate Editor Jamie Schafer, respectively. Both are associates at Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Washington, DC.
Tyco Resolves DOJ and SEC FCPA Enforcement Action
On Sept. 24, Tyco International Ltd. (Tyco) resolved enforcement actions by the DOJ and the SEC for alleged violations of the FCPA. Fines and penalties totaled over $26 million ($13.68 in the DOJ enforcement action and over $13 million in the SEC enforcement action). As part of the resolution, Tyco Valves & Controls Middle East Inc. (TVC ME), an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of Tyco, plead guilty before U.S. District Judge
TVC ME marketed and sold industrial equipment throughout the Middle East for various oil, gas, petrochemical, commercial construction, water treatment, and desalination industries. According to the criminal information, TVC ME, along with others, bribed employees of end-customers in Saudi Arabia, the U.A.E., and Iran, including employees of Saudi Aramco, Emirates National Oil Company, Vopak Horizon Fujairah, and the National Iranian Gas Company, in order to retain business. TVC ME improperly recorded bribe payments in its books, records and accounts, describing the payments as consultancy costs, commissions, or equipment costs. At sentencing, the court ordered TVC ME to pay $2.1 million, which was included in the overall $13.68 million penalty against Tyco.
According to the NPA, in addition to the $26 million payment, Tyco must continue to implement an enhanced compliance program and internal controls designed to prevent and detect future FCPA violations. Tyco must also report annually to the DOJ over the next three years, but is not required to retain an external compliance monitor.
Business Crimes Hotline and In the Courts were written by Christian E. Izaguirre and Associate Editor Jamie Schafer, respectively. Both are associates at
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.