Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Global Increase of FCPA Bribery Cases Raises Specter of Piling On
Prosecution of bribery of foreign public officials, under the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) and other similar laws, has been rising globally for some time. This salutary trend has brought many benefits, including more ethical business practices, improved governance and economic growth. Yet the increasing number of regulators and enforcement agencies bringing foreign bribery cases across the globe raises the specter of successive or "carbon copy" cases. Policymakers and practitioners need to be aware of this developing risk and take steps to mitigate it.
Background
The FCPA prohibits making corrupt payments to foreign officials to obtain or retain business. The law was passed in 1977 in an effort to combat U.S. companies' bribery while operating overseas, which Congress viewed as unethical and also bad business. The statute's prohibitions apply to U.S. persons and businesses, foreign or U.S. public companies listed on U.S. exchanges or that file periodic reports with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) (referred to as issuers), and certain foreign persons and businesses acting corruptly while in the territory of the United States.
In addition to the anti-bribery provisions, issuers are subject to the accounting provisions of the FCPA, which require companies to keep and maintain accurate books and records and adequate internal controls, and prohibit knowing falsification of books and records or circumvention of internal controls. In some instances, the FCPA's broad jurisdictional provisions can provide grounds to prosecute non-U.S. persons and companies, regardless of where the bribes were paid.
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.