Sprint 4G: The Home Broadband Alternative? – PCWorld

Sprint Nextel
Image via Wikipedia

In addition to being a pretty cool phone with all the latest bells and whistles, the HTC Evo 4G has one very unique attribute: It’s the first U.S. handset designed for 4G (fourth generation) mobile broadband networks.

Sprint says its 4G WiMax network, a partnership between the wireless carrier and its broadband partner Clearwire, is up to 10 times faster than today’s 3G speeds. That translates into download speeds of up to 6 megabits per second (Mbps), although performance will vary by location.

PC World‘s Mark Sullivan, who tested the Sprint/Clearwire network in Las Vegas in March, saw download rates ranging from a blistering 11 Mbps to 13 Mbps at the high end, to a not-too-shabby 2 Mbps at the low end. At those speeds, WiMax is a viable alternative to today’s home broadband offerings, including DSL, cable, and fiber (e.g., FiOS).

Sprint sees a potential market there too. “We see Sprint 4G as a tremendous opportunity for customers who are interested in choosing a wireless solution over Cable/DSL/fiber,” company spokesman Mark Elliott told me recently. The company’s 4G service is currently available in 32 U.S. markets, and Sprint hopes to reach 120 million people by end of 2010.

via Sprint 4G: The Home Broadband Alternative? – PCWorld.

Compliance comes calling | The Economic Times

Take an Indian conglomerate preparing to acquire a Belgian company. The last thing it needs to worry about is US criminal laws, right? Wrong — and indeed, buying the Belgian concern without thoroughly analysing its compliance profile could mean buying tens of millions of dollars in criminal liability.

The compliance challenges posed by the vigorous pursuit by the US of alleged Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) transgressors have been compounded as other countries, most prominently Germany and the UK, have adopted and begun active enforcement of anti-foreign corruption laws of their own.

On January 19, for example, the US unveiled 22 indictments of individuals, including UK citizen Pankesh Patel, as a result of an undercover operation with FBI agents posing as sales agents offering to corruptly facilitate foreign contracts. Patel and 20 other defendants were handcuffed in front of their peers right on the floor of a Las Vegas trade show.

In his allegedly corrupt pursuit of defence contracts in Africa, Patel had meetings within the US, and sent paperwork in furtherance of the underlying scheme to the US. His indictment is an application of FCPA provisions catching foreign persons that take steps within the US to further overseas corruption.

For Indian companies that are issuers of US securities , no such actions within the US would even be required.

For our hypothetical Belgian marketing company, though not directly subject to the FCPA, it might have FCPA liability if it had corruptly carried out business operations for US companies, or sent dollar-denominated wire transfers for corrupt purposes.

Another trend worth noting for non-US companies is the expectation of active supervision on the part of senior corporate executives.

US enforcers have held executives at headquarters responsible for misconduct occurring in the field, on the basis that the executives failed to supervise far-flung personnel or failed to design internal controls to prevent misconduct.

Other countries are also raising the bar to prevent bribery. In part, this is due to diplomatic pressure from the US but also the efforts of the OECD and the UN, both of whom have sponsored conventions that are now in place mandating that their signatories take certain actions in the fight against corruption. India is party to the UN convention.

The Siemens case in which it paid a record settlement of $800 million in fines and disgorgement of profits was mirrored by a fine of equal magnitude paid to the German regulator.

via Compliance comes calling-Opinion-The Economic Times.

Prosecutors, Defense Snipe Over Speedy Trial Clock in FCPA Case – The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times

Justice Department prosecutors are fighting back against the demands of some criminal defense lawyers that the government not be allowed to control the pace of the department’s most ambitious Foreign Corrupt Practices Act case, unfolding in federal district court in Washington.

Twenty-two executives and employees in the arms dealing business have been charged in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia with attempting to bribe a fictitious foreign official in order to secure a cut of a $15 million contract. The case is the largest-ever prosecution of individuals for FCPA crimes and marks the first large-scale use of an undercover sting in the department’s fight against foreign corruption.

Defense lawyers for 18 of the 22 defendants are challenging the prosecution’s request to stop the speedy trial clock, saying that the government has had ample time to investigate and prepare the case for trial. Charges were announced in January, capping an investigation that lasted for more than two years. Most of the defendants were arrested that month at a trade show in Las Vegas. Some of the defense lawyers have said they are prepared to go to trial this summer.

Prosecutors want to stop the speedy trial clock, saying that the cases are complex and likely involve novel legal issues. To support the “complex” designation of the case, the prosecution argues that the cases include “voluminous” discovery and a “wide-ranging” alleged conspiracy. The prosecution has not announced whether it plans to group certain defendants together for trial or go at defendants one by one.

via Prosecutors, Defense Snipe Over Speedy Trial Clock in FCPA Case – The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times.

Benefits of Skype Mobile on Verizon

As of Thursday, Verizon and Skype will make good on the promised partnership announced at the Mobile World Congress in Barcelona last month. Using another industry conference, the CTIA show in Las Vegas this week, Verizon announced that Skype will be available for nine different smartphones this week, with more to come.

Businesses of all sizes–but small and medium businesses in particular–operate on increasingly tight budgets. Communication with peers, customers, partners, and suppliers is the lifeblood of business, though, so businesses need to figure out ways to maximize the bang for the buck from the communications budget.

Leveraging VoIP, such as the Skype app, from a smartphone can help achieve that goal. Here are four key considerations that make the Skype-Verizon alliance good for business professionals.

via Benefits of Skype Mobile on Verizon.

U.S. sends a message by stepping up crackdown on foreign business bribes – washingtonpost.com

Federal authorities want companies to know that the cost of paying bribes to win overseas contracts is growing steeper by the day.

Long a priority of the FBI and the Justice Department, efforts to police corrupt business payments have intensified in recent weeks, with multimillion-dollar corporate settlements and coordinated arrests of individual executives accused of attempting to grease the skids.

On Friday, BAE Systems, the world’s second-largest defense contractor, agreed to pay $400 million to resolve decade-old allegations that it misled the Defense and State departments about its efforts to comply with the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. The law bars companies from bribing government officials to win lucrative contracts and other favorable treatment.

The BAE deal came weeks after the FBI unveiled its first FCPA sting operation, which culminated in the arrests of nearly two dozen businessmen employed in the defense and law enforcement equipment industry. Most of the people arrested were in Las Vegas to attend a trade show. FBI agents and prosecutors in the Justice Department’s Fraud Section arranged the takedown to occur at a shooting range after the suspects had checked their personal firearms on the way in the door.

via U.S. sends a message by stepping up crackdown on foreign business bribes – washingtonpost.com.

U.S. charges 22 with bribery involving arms sales | Reuters

U.S. authorities accused 22 people, including an executive for Smith & Wesson Holding Corp (SWHC.O), with violating federal bribery laws involving the sale of various arms, the U.S. Justice Department said on Tuesday.

The indictments charged the individuals, including Smith & Wesson Vice President for Sales Amaro Goncalves, with violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and conspiracy to commit money laundering involving the sale of items including guns and body armor.

Also charged was the chief executive of Protective Products of America Inc (PPA.TO), R. Patrick Caldwell, who previously worked for the U.S. Secret Service for 27 years and was the special agent in charge of the division for the vice president’s protection.

That company filed for bankruptcy protection last week and sought approval to be acquired by an affiliate of the private investment firm Sun Capital Partners Inc.

The indictments, filed in December, were unsealed by a U.S. judge on Tuesday and follow undercover operations last year. The individuals were arrested on Monday in Las Vegas and Miami.

via UPDATE 1-U.S. charges 22 with bribery involving arms sales | Reuters.

Business in China: What Does ‘Playing by the Rules’ Mean? – China Real Time Report – WSJ

Can foreigners do business in China without violating the law? A recent article in the New Yorker on foreigners doing business in China quotes one English victim of fraud that undid the joint venture for which he worked as saying that “if you played by the rules, you were finished.” (Tim Clissold, author of Mr. China, cited by Evan Osnos, “Letter from China” The New Yorker,” Nov. 23, 2009.) The article also cites a very different view, that of Don St. Pierre, Jr., who with his father, a veteran of business in China, operates a successful wine importing business: “…If you are engaged in business you are subject to the same rules as everybody else.”

The first point of view seems obvious enough if Clissold meant simply adhering to laws as they are written, rather than in practice. Or is it? If it means you have to violate Chinese laws and regulations in order to succeed, you are obviously asking for trouble, and that seems like a dangerous course of action. But what does the alternative view mean when it refers to the conduct of “everybody else” in an economy and society in which the rules are often hard to find, opaque when you find them, and subject to varying interpretations or neglect in different parts of China according to the extraordinarily wide discretion of bureaucrats?

Suppose, for example, that the general manager of the joint venture in which you have invested is asked to find a job at the venture for the son of a provincial official who has some regulatory powers over it. Or suppose your Chinese partner suggests that a group of engineers ought to be sent to the U.S for training, but proposes an itinerary that indicates the group will spend more time in Las Vegas than anywhere else? Chinese laws and regulations, as well as Communist Party rules, prohibit officials from using their positions to extract benefits, including, for example, tourism. The U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act prohibits giving “anything of value” to a “foreign official” with the “corrupt purpose” of obtaining business. It also permits, however, “reasonable and bona fide expenditures, such as travel and lodging expenses…of a foreign official…directly related” to promotion of products or “the execution or performance of a contract.”

[continued] Stanley Lubman: Business in China: What Does ‘Playing by the Rules’ Mean? – China Real Time Report – WSJ.

Ex Parte Contact with Independent Forensic Examiner Results in Forfeiture of Opportunity for Forensic Examination and Denial of Motion for Sanctions with Prejudice : Electronic Discovery Law

G.K. Las Vegas Ltd. P’ship v. Simon Prop. Group, 2009 WL 4283086 (D. Nev. Nov. 30, 2009)

Following a determination that defendants participated in improper ex parte communications with an independent, court-appointed forensic expert and thus destroyed its impartiality, the district court held that defendants had forfeited their right to a forensic examination of plaintiffs’ relevant computer systems and modified its prior order to deny defendants’ motion for spoliation sanctions with prejudice.

In this case stemming from a partnership formed for the development and management of a Las Vegas Strip shopping complex, defendants suspected plaintiffs of the spoliation of relevant electronically stored evidence (“ESI”) and filed a motion for sanctions accordingly.  At a hearing on the motion, the court indicated its unwillingness to grant the motion in light of the possibility that the ESI could be located on other hard drives in plaintiffs’ possession and authorized the forensic examination of plaintiffs’ relevant computers by an independent expert.  If the parties agreed, they were instructed to contact the court to “work out an order.”  The court also indicated that defendants would bear the cost of such an examination, but that the costs could be shifted upon the proper showing of spoliation.  Accordingly, defendants’ spoliation motion was denied without prejudice.

Thereafter, the parties agreed that FTI Consulting (“FTI”) would perform the forensic examination.  Accordingly, defendants made contact with FTI to determine its willingness to participate.  Defendants also provided FTI with various documents for review, but did not notify plaintiffs of the exchange.

After defendants’ initial communications with FTI as described above, the court entered an order governing the forensic examination.  The scope of the order was quite specific and charged the examiner with two tasks.  First, FTI was to determine whether the relevant computers/servers contained the ESI at issue, to restore the ESI if found, and to perform an agreed upon search to identify potentially relevant emails to be provided to plaintiffs for review.  Second, FTI was to determine whether any such ESI had been deleted and if so, to determine the details of that deletion.

[continued] Ex Parte Contact with Independent Forensic Examiner Results in Forfeiture of Opportunity for Forensic Examination and Denial of Motion for Sanctions with Prejudice : Electronic Discovery Law.

Can Tech Shows Boost a Firm’s Bottom Line?

You can't help but wonder about an Am Law 200 firm that significantly cut or eliminated IT and litigation support staff attendance at this year's LegalTech and ILTA '09 conferences. The reasons vary, from “it wouldn't look right” to “we just have to cut expenses everywhere.”

Good thing these shows weren't held in Las Vegas. No firm would have sent its IT folks there for a week of blackjack and “Texas Hold-'em” parties. Not a chance. It just wouldn't send the right message; what with the layoffs, frozen salaries, and the elimination of bonuses. But these shows weren't in Vegas, and despite the beliefs of some (dare I say, many?), they aren't paid vacations for the technology staff.

Last year, law firms sent 1,320 people to the ILTA conference in Dallas. Of those, 735 came from firms with more than 250 attorneys. A year later, at a site near Washington, D.C., that for millions is a train ride away, law firm attendance dropped 47 percent, to 704 full-conference attendees. Firms with more than 250 attorneys sent only 376 folks, a drop of nearly 50 percent. These numbers don't include the attendees from corporate law departments, law schools, or the government, with ILTA's total attendance down 38 percent from the prior year.  And ILTA wasn't alone — almost all conferences in the legal arena suffered a drop in attendance due to the economy. LegalTech's double-digit growth over the last few years was arrested this year. According to Henry Payne Dicker, vice president of ALM Events, attendance for the New York show was down slightly from previous years.

We don't have data on what percentage of a firm's technology budget was saved by not sending some of its IT staff to this conference, but with ILTA's $1,025 fee (which included meals), and a deeply discounted hotel room, it couldn't have been much. And, there are firms (mine included) that will improve their bottom line by a lot more than what they spent on attendees of the ILTA '09 conference — because they realize that surviving (and hopefully flourishing) in these economic times is as much about exploring new efficiencies as it is about cutting costs.

[continued] Law.com – Can Tech Shows Boost a Firm’s Bottom Line?.