Top Menu

From The Docket

Judicial Decision

As highlighted in this prior post, in 2016 Misonix made a voluntary disclosure to the DOJ and SEC to “inform both agencies that the Company may have had knowledge of certain business practices of the independent Chinese entity that distributes its products in China, which practices raise questions under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.”

In 2017 Cicel (Beijing) Science & Technology Co. Ltd. brought a variety of civil claims against Misonix concerning its business relationship with the company. Among the claims brought by Cicel was a breach of contract claim. Misonix acknowledged that it terminated the contract, but argued that it “was justified in doing so because of Misonix’s FCPA investigation” regarding Cicel. In response, Cicel claimed that the investigation “was a ruse for breaching the contract.”

As highlighted in this prior post, a judge allowed Cicel’s claim to proceed beyond the motion to dismiss stage.

Recently, a judge granted Misonix’s motion for summary judgment on the breach of contract claim. The decision (2022 WL 188994) provides a rare public view into the origin’s of Misonix’s scrutiny and investigation.

Continue Reading

Friday Roundup

Roundup

Cannabis industry, fooled me, questions abound, investigative fees and expenses, survey says, scrutiny alert, and for the reading stack.

It’s all here in the Friday roundup.

Cannabis Industry

This recent FBI public recording states: “As an increasing number of states change their marijuana legislation, the FBI is seeing a public corruption threat emerge in the expanding cannabis industry. States require licenses to grow and sell the drug—opening the possibility for public officials to become susceptible to bribes in exchange for those licenses.”

Continue Reading

Once Again, Rebooting A Long-Standing FCPA Proposal, This Time In The Aftermath Of A Recent Disclosure By Misonix

proposal

Including the first time I proposed this concept in 2010, this is the 9th time I have written this general post (see hereherehereherehereherehere and here for the previous versions) and until things change I will keep writing it which means I will probably keep writing this same general post long into the future.

The proposal is this: when a company voluntarily discloses an FCPA internal investigation to the DOJ and/or SEC and when one or both of the enforcement agencies do not bring an enforcement action, have the enforcement agency publicly state, in a thorough and transparent mannerthe facts the company disclosed and why the enforcement agency did not bring an enforcement action based on those facts.

Continue Reading

From The Dockets

Judicial Decision

This post highlights updates to Foreign Corrupt Practices Act related civil actions involving OSI Systems and Misonix.

OSI Systems

As highlighted in this prior post, in late 2017 investment firm Muddy Waters Research accused OSI Systems (a California based company that develops and markets security and inspection systems such as airport security X-ray machines and metal detectors) of corruption in Albania. As often happens when a company becomes the subject of FCPA scrutiny, plaintiff’s lawyers representing shareholder filed securities fraud class action lawsuits.

Continue Reading

Friday Roundup

Roundup

DOJ’s year in review, ripple, scrutiny alerts and updates, simply false, and amusing. It’s all here in the Friday roundup.

DOJ’s Year In Review

The DOJ Fraud Section recently released its year in review. According to the document, “the FCPA Unit has 32 prosecutors.” When reviewing the statistics in the document keep in mind that the FCPA Unit “investigates and prosecutes cases under the FCPA and related statutes.” In other words, the statistics include non-FCPA matters such as when the DOJ charges or prosecutes alleged “foreign officials” for money laundering and related offenses.

Continue Reading

Powered by WordPress. Designed by WooThemes