Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
In July 2019, Microsoft Corporation and its wholly-owned subsidiary Microsoft Magyarorszag Kft. (Microsoft Hungary) agreed to pay a combined $25 million in criminal and civil penalties to resolve U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and Department of Justice (DOJ) investigations into Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) violations in Hungary, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Thailand.
Without admitting or denying the SEC's findings, Microsoft consented to a cease-and-desist order and disgorgement and pre-judgment interest of approximately $16.5 million as part of the settlement. Microsoft Hungary will pay a criminal penalty of over $8.5 million and also entered into a three-year non-prosecution agreement with the DOJ.
According to the SEC and DOJ, in Hungary, from at least 2013 to 2015, Microsoft Hungary secured approximately $13.7 million in business as a result of making improper payments to government officials in connection with various licensing transactions and service engagements for Hungarian government agencies. In certain foreign countries, including Hungary, Microsoft does not enter into contracts directly with its end customers, but sells software licenses via distributors or third party resellers who bid for the opportunity to sell Microsoft licenses to government customers. In this context, additional funds were secured under the guise of excessive discounts said to be necessary to conclude deals with local resellers. A senior executive of Microsoft Hungary approved such discounts, and false justifications were provided to Microsoft's global centralized "Business Desk" for their further endorsement. Instead of being passed onto government end customers that included Hungary's National Tax and Customs Administration (NAV) and Hungary's National Police (ORFK), the savings were used for corrupt purposes. The DOJ's Statement of Facts includes further examples where Microsoft Hungary Managers obtained discount approvals from the Business Desk after the government agency had already accepted a higher price.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
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
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 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.
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.
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.
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.