Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
In recent years, U.S. prosecutors and regulators have shown increasing interest in prosecuting people and entities with little or no connection to the United States. This trend has been especially pronounced in the context of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA). See, Harry Sandick & Devon Hercher, "New FCPA Decision Limits DOJ's International Reach," Business Crimes Bulletin (May 2020) (stating that a majority of firms charged with FCPA violations are non-U.S. firms). This trend extends beyond the FCPA to the prosecution of white-collar crime more generally. See, Harry Sandick & Jeff Kinkle, "The Global Reach of U.S. Law Enforcement," N.Y. Law Journal (Dec. 10, 2018).
Of late, we have seen this "mission creep" carry over into the arena of trade sanctions, which are enforced by the Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC). According to OFAC, these programs are meant to advance "U.S. foreign policy and national security goals." One might find it surprising that OFAC regards it as the responsibility of individuals outside of the United States to work to advance the nation's foreign policy and national security goals. And yet that seems to be the case. Indeed, 23 of the 67 settlements and enforcement actions OFAC has brought since May of 2017 — more than one-third of OFAC's announced cases — have targeted non-U.S. companies.
That OFAC would have such a heavy focus on foreign actors is not self-evident from its policy statements. For example, in its website's FAQ section, OFAC addresses the question of "[w]ho must comply with OFAC regulations," and emphasizes that U.S. individuals and entities must comply. It states that U.S. persons and permanent residents must comply with OFAC regulations, as well as "all persons and entities within the United States, all U.S. incorporated entities and their foreign branches." In addition, "foreign subsidiaries owned or controlled by U.S. companies also must comply" with certain sanctions programs. Finally, OFAC states that "[c]ertain programs also require foreign persons in possession of U.S.-origin goods to comply." Consistent with this, most of the cases that have been brought against non-U.S. entities are brought against those who transact in U.S.-origin goods (such as the 2/26/20 SITA settlement, the 8/24/17 COSL settlement, the 3/7/17 Zhongxing settlement, and the 1/12/17 Aban settlement) or involve non-U.S. financial institutions who interact with U.S. financial institutions for purposes of clearing U.S. dollar transactions (such as the 1/14/21 UBAF settlement and the 9/17/19 BACB settlement).
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
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.
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.
Ideally, the objective of defining the role and responsibilities of Practice Group Leaders should be to establish just enough structure and accountability within their respective practice group to maximize the economic potential of the firm, while institutionalizing the principles of leadership and teamwork.
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?