FCPA Professor has been described as “the Wall Street Journal concerning all things FCPA-related,” and “the most authoritative source for those seeking to understand and apply the FCPA.”
Set forth below are the topics discussed this week on FCPA Professor.
As highlighted here, United Technologies Corporation resolved a $13.9 million FCPA enforcement action. The conduct at issue concerned a Russian and Azerbaijani improper payment scheme, a China aviation scheme, improper payments for sales in China, and leisure travel for foreign officials from several countries including China, Kuwait, South Korea, Pakistan, Thailand, and Indonesia. This post highlights additional issues to consider from the enforcement action.
Sure as dogs bark and the sun rises in the east, in the aftermath of an FCPA enforcement action or merely an instance of FCPA scrutiny, plaintiffs’ counsel (no doubt representing shareholders on a contingent fee basis) file securities fraud class actions and hope to get some claims past the motion to dismiss stage. As highlighted here, often times such cases are dismissed, yet as highlighted here occasionally some claims are allowed to proceed.
As highlighted in this post, in an FCPA-related civil matter a judge recently found the term “instrumentality” in the FCPA’s foreign official definition “unclear” and otherwise narrowly construed the term contrary to the DOJ’s current position.