Bribery law breaches can cost U.S. firms dearly | Business Insurance

As global expansion among mid-market companies and the federal government’s enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act trend upwards, experts say now is the time for executives and their employees to educate themselves on the law’s finer points.

Helping executives at midsize firms address people risks, such as benefits, workers comp and professional liability; property and liability risks, including insurance and loss control; and operational growth risks such as M&A and product development.

Enacted in 1977 to combat bribery among U.S. companies doing business overseas, the law essentially prohibits firms and their representatives from paying any operative of a foreign government in exchange for contracts, unfair business advantages or other considerations.

The U.S. Department of Justice’s enforcement of the law has increased 300% in the past 10 years, rising to 24 such enforcement actions in 2010. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has made it a high priority to try to win changes in the law. Other business groups also have criticized on the law saying it puts U.S. companies at a competitive disadvantage in markets where bribery or other conduct prohibited by the law is customary.

While publicly traded companies are held to a stricter standard—including bookkeeping and internal control documentation—experts said smaller and midsize private companies and nonprofits should expect just as much scrutiny from federal regulators as their larger counterparts.

Criminal penalties for violation of the FCPA can carry fines of up to $2 million for companies and $100,000 for individuals—not to mention jail time—or, under the Alternative Fines Act, up to twice the cash value of the benefit sought in making the bribe or other corrupt payment. The government also can impose civil fines of up $10,000 per employee convicted of violating the anti-bribery law.

via Bribery law breaches can cost U.S. firms dearly | Business Insurance.

For Wall Street, Antibribery Inquiry Is Cause for Concern – NYTimes.com

The Securities and Exchange Commission’s inquiry into Wall Street’s dealings with sovereign wealth funds for possible violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act is another expansion in the use of the antibribery law. Over the past few years, the act has been used more frequently against multinational companies, and there is no reason why financial firms should avoid scrutiny.

Historically most Foreign Corrupt Practices Act cases have involved contracts with foreign governments, mineral extraction or manufacturing facilities. But with capital for finance companies drying up amid the financial meltdown, Richard L. Cassin, author of the FCPA Blog, noted in 2008 that interactions with sovereign wealth funds might trigger problems with the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. He noted at the time that such “cases generally spring from industries that deal in scarce commodities – whatever those happen to be at any moment in history.”

The S.E.C.’s inquiry is in the early stages, with the agency simply asking firms to retain documents related to their dealings with sovereign wealth funds. When there is the specter of an Foreign Corrupt Practices Act investigation, companies under the microscope naturally get very nervous about the course of the inquiry.

via For Wall Street, Antibribery Inquiry Is Cause for Concern – NYTimes.com.

Why eDiscovery Search Needs To Be Transparent

Since eDiscovery demands the review of every single document, transparency in the process can address the problems of over-inclusiveness and under-inclusiveness. A transparent search with a greater visibility scope can help investigators understand the mechanism of obtaining results and eliminating issues, and make it one of the top eDiscovery methodologies. The transparent search option should have some important characteristics:

1.Transparent query expansion – By implementing the query expansion process, search tools can conduct an expansive query and transform it into a new form. This is generally done with wildcard, stemming, concept and fuzzy search methodologies. So there is a large array of expanded keywords that investigators can view, and discard those terms which have no relevance or have been falsely expanded. This can help control the complexities of the process and thereby help cull data more efficiently.

2.Handling multiple queries – When multiple keywords are submitted, the tools should be able to provide the results of each individual query as well as a combination of all of them. If the user is provided with 100 search results, it should also be clear which are worthwhile. This helps bring an organized mechanism into action for search testing, sampling and refinement.

3.Rapid sampling – Rapid sampling tests conducted on the results highlight the quality of the transparent search tool. Along with this, it should also be capable of taking samples of documents that do not match the queries to help identify and confirm that documents containing relevant content are not missed.

4.Automated documentation – The transparent search needs to document the entire process, including things like keywords that have been excluded, multiple as well as individual queries, etc. These can be produced before the court if the investigating methodology should come into question.

There is no possibility of critical errors with a transparent search methodology. This approach provides stronger defensibility in legal eDiscovery, which can reduce time and costs by eliminating all deceptive perspectives and accentuating the culling process effectively.

via Why eDiscovery Search Needs To Be Transparent.

Panel Recommends the ABA Accredit Overseas Law Schools | National Law Journal

The American Bar Association is already tasked by the U.S. Department of Education to accredit U.S. law schools. Now an ABA committee has recommended that it should seriously consider expanding that power to overseas law schools that follow the U.S. model.

In June, the ABA’s Council of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar appointed the committee of law professors, attorneys, judges and law deans to examine whether foreign law schools should be allowed to seek ABA accreditation. The council is scheduled to consider the committee’s recommendations in December.

The committee cited an earlier ABA report’s conclusion that state supreme courts and bar associations are under more pressure than ever to make decisions about admitting foreign lawyers as the legal profession becomes more globalized.

“Such an expansion would provide additional guidance for state supreme courts when lawyers trained outside the United States seek to be allowed to sit for a U.S. bar examination,” the committee said in its report. “Since that is a key function of the accreditation process generally, the expansion would be consistent with the historic role of the section in aiding state supreme courts in the bar admissions area.”

via Panel Recommends the ABA Accredit Overseas Law Schools.