(l-r) Mayling Blanco, Katey Fardelmann, and Lucy Hoffman of Norton Rose Fulbright. Courtesy photos Foreign Extortion Prevention Act: What US Entities Should Know and Why It's Relevant Today
This article discusses the recently enacted Foreign Extortion Prevention Act, which—unlike the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act—focuses on the demand-side of bribe payments. But will FEPA also create more potential exposure for U.S. entities? What should U.S. companies do today to prepare?
April 09, 2024 at 10:28 AM
8 minute read
For decades, it has irked those subject to the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) that those who demanded payments appeared to escape the crushing consequences. The FCPA was first enacted by Congress in 1977 to combat the wide-ranging corruption that was seen as unsettling free-markets and hindering democratic stability. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977, 15 U.S.C. §§78dd-1, et seq; see also U.S. Department of Justice and Securities and Exchange Commission, A Resource Guide to the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (Second Edition). The law prohibits U.S. companies, persons and issuers as well as foreign persons and businesses acting within the U.S. territory from making or promising anything of value to foreign officials to obtain or retain business or an improper business advantage. Yet the FCPA has one significant limiting factor: it only reaches the supply side of bribes to foreign officials.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All
GC Pleads Guilty to Embezzling $7.4 Million From 3 Banks
Alex Spiro Accuses Prosecutors of 'Unethical' Comments in Adams' Bribery Case
Feds Chide Defense Attorney Alex Spiro for Extrajudicial Comments in NYC's Adams Case
Enemy of the State: Foreign Sovereign Immunity and Criminal Prosecutions after ‘Halkbank’
10 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1'Be Comfortable Being Uncomfortable': Pearls of Wisdom From 2024 GC Q&As
- 2The New Frontier in Legal Compliance: Privacy, Security, and Information Governance for Law Firms
- 3North Carolina Courts Switch to Digital, Face Extreme Weather in 2024
- 4It’s Happening Faster than Anyone Thought
- 5Mootness and Ethics: Meeting the Client’s Objectives
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
