UK Bribery Act 2010 – Get Ready To Comply Now

The Editor interviews Matthew Shankland , Litigation Partner, and Jamie Maples , Litigation Associate, in the London Dispute Resolution Group of Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP.

Editor: Please give our readers an overview of the new UK Bribery Act (“Act”).

Maples: Before the election and the change of government in the UK in May, one of the final acts of the last Parliament was to pass new anticorruption legislation in the form of the Bribery Act 2010. The UK has long had laws against corruption, but this new law is designed to update those laws and bring them into line with international practice. In fact, in some respects the Act goes a good deal further than its counterparts in other countries. The Act comes into force in April 2011 and companies affected by it should be taking steps now in order to ensure compliance.

Editor: What is the definition of “bribery” under the Act?

Shankland: The main scheme of the Act is to outlaw or to prescribe as an offense the act of giving or offering a bribe. It’s also notable that under our Act, it will be an offense to receive or solicit a bribe. The offense is not simply aimed at offering bribes to public officials, it’s extremely broad. It covers bribes offered or received in almost any business, commercial, governmental or regulatory context. All that is required is evidence that the bribing party sought to obtain influence over the actual or would be recipient of the bribe in order to gain a business advantage or to obtain or retain business. The penalties prescribed in the Act are an unlimited fine and potentially ten years in prison. The Act is aimed at both individuals and companies.

Editor: How does this differ from the approach taken by the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”)?

Maples: The Act is broader in its scope than the FCPA in several important respects. Unlike the Act, the bribes prohibited by FCPA are limited to those to foreign officials. The FCPA does not target those who receive bribes and does not require some payments to have been made corruptly. However, the UK Act follows the FCPA in prohibiting indirect bribery, that is to say to use a third party to make a bribe.

via UK Bribery Act 2010 – Get Ready To Comply Now.

Virgin could lose immunity from price-fixing penalties | Air Transport Intelligence

Airbus A340-600
Image via Wikipedia

Virgin Atlantic could face losing its immunity from penalties for alleged price-fixing activity after the UK Office of Fair Trading was forced to withdraw criminal proceedings against four former and current British Airways executives due to the late emergence of previously-undisclosed electronic evidence.

A jury at Southwark Crown Court in London today acquitted BA’s current director of sales and marketing, Andrew Crawley, former head of UK and Ireland sales Alan Burnett, former commercial director Martin George and former head of corporate communications Iain Burns of cartel charges related to the price-fixing of fuel surcharges with Virgin Atlantic on long-haul passenger flights between July 2004 and April 2006.

Virgin Atlantic was granted immunity from penalties after it relayed details of the exchanges to the OFT. But the OFT says that last week it discovered “a substantial volume of electronic material, which neither the OFT nor the defence had previously been able to review” and, as a result of the late discovery, it accepts that “to continue with the trial in light of this unforeseen development would be potentially unfair to the defendants”.

The previously-undisclosed material includes emails sent or received by Virgin Atlantic’s former director of corporate affairs, Paul Moore. The OFT says it will now “be reviewing the role played by Virgin Atlantic and its advisers in light of the airline’s obligations to provide the OFT with continuous and complete co-operation”, adding that “this may have potential consequences for Virgin's immunity from penalties”.

The OFT stresses that today’s decision relates only to criminal proceedings against the four BA executives, and that it has “no reason to believe that the issues that have now arisen in those proceedings will have any impact on the OFT’s civil case (save possibly as regards Virgin Atlantic's immunity), as this concerns the conduct of the companies involved rather than the alleged dishonesty of individuals”.

via Virgin could lose immunity from price-fixing penalties.

Hogan Lovells Faces Challenge of Managing a Megafirm | National Law Journal

Hogan Lovells is, as of Saturday, a reality — a 2,500-lawyer, 47-office megafirm that spans four continents.

Now, the firm’s leaders have to manage their leviathan and clean up mass of details still facing them: Can they work out their compensation system? Can they build their corporate and finance practices into true power players? Can they forge a culture across a firm with this many lawyers in this many countries?

For months, since Washington-based Hogan & Hartson and London-based Lovells announced the merger, top partners have buzzed around the globe to sell the deal to clients and their fellow lawyers. Tech staffers have worked to pull together management, conflicts and other computer systems. Marketers have scurried to set up new website and sell the brand.

Despite all the work, the question remains: Is Hogan Lovells really a single firm? By traditional measures — sharing profits, a single compensation system and a single partnership — the answer is muddy. For tax and liability reasons, lawyers inside the United States and outside the United States will work in two separate partnerships, and profits will be pooled separately. A single comp system is to be phased in over time. “We’re looking at May 1 not as the finish line, but the starting point for the new firm,” said former Hogan Chairman J. Warren Gorrell Jr., who is co-CEO of Hogan Lovells.

At that starting line, the firm boasts 20,000 clients in about 80,000 ongoing matters; some 700 lawyers doing litigation work; and an instant top 10 ranking in terms of revenue and headcount. Gorrell said Hogan Lovells' work is roughly 35 percent corporate, 25 percent litigation, 15 percent finance, and the rest split between intellectual property and regulatory matters. Common clients between the legacy firms include Ford Motor Co., Barclays PLC, Bank of America Merrill Lynch, JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Iberdrola S.A., a Spanish energy company.

via Hogan Lovells Faces Challenge of Managing a Megafirm.

Global EDD Group Adds Regional Offices, Updates Telephone Contact Information

As of 03 May 2010, Global EDD Group will be adding regional offices in New York City and San Francisco to provide localized service to our current and prospective clients.  Please note the following company contact information:

Headquarters

+1.216.539.8448     Main Number
+1.888.865.9548     Toll Free (US)
info@globaledd.com

Asia Pacific

c/o Data Management Corporation
+65 6275 0775     Main Number
infoasiapacific@globaledd.com

New York City

+1.646.502.8068     Main Number
+1.888.865.9548     Toll Free (US)
infonyc@globaledd.com

San Francisco

+1.415.315.9762     Main Number
+1.888.865.9548     Toll Free (US)
infosfo@globaledd.com

International Direct Dial

London  +44.020.8123.8228
Hong Kong   +852.8179.8901
Tokyo   +81.50.5806.6101

4 Firms Nab Roles on London’s Largest IPO in 3 Years | The American Lawyer

Essar Energy, a subsidiary of Indian conglomerate Essar Group, has set a price range for its planned $2.5 billion London IPO, according to a report in The Wall Street Journal. The listing is reportedly the largest on the London exchange in nearly three years.

Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer, Linklaters, and Indian firms Amarchand & Mangaldas and Talwar Thakore & Associates are lead counsel on the offering, according to Indian legal publication Bar & Bench.

Essar Energy, owned by Indian billionaires Shashi and Ravi Ruia, will float approximately 20 to 25 percent of its shares as part of the offering. Bloomberg reports the funds from the IPO will help the integrated oil and gas unit of Mumbai-based Essar Group expand its power generation and energy exploration operations overseas.

Freshfields corporate partners Stuart Grider and Neil Radford are advising Essar Energy. The company has turned to Amarchand as local counsel in India. Radford previously advised metal and mining group Vedanta Resources, the first Indian company to go public in the U.K., when it raised $876 million in 2003. (Amarchand also advised Vedanta on that offering.)

via 4 Firms Nab Roles on London’s Largest IPO in 3 Years.

Victorinox introduces Secure Pro Swiss Army knife model with up to 32GB USB drive | The Toybox | ZDNet.com

A Swiss Army knife retains a lot of tools, but sometimes I get greedy and wish that mine could offer just a little more. Perhaps something more…modern. It looks like USB storage is the next step.

Victorinox has debuted the Secure Pro USB model, which they are dubbing as “tamper-proof” and “un-hackable.”

While there have been USB keys added to previous Swiss Army knife models, this is the first edition that promises ultimate security. And it’s not all talk, either. The company put its money where its mouth was and put the Secure Pro to the test.

At a contest held in London, Victorinox was offering a £100,000 cash prize ($149,000) to a team of professional hackers if they could break into the USB drive within two hours. They failed.

Some of the security layers on the Secure Pro include a thermal sensor, biometric fingerprint recognition technology and a self-destruct mechanism. So for anyone wanting to pretend they are James Bond, here is the chance.

As for other tools on the Secure Pro, you’ve got your basic blade, scissors, screwdriver and nail file. It would be perfect with a can opener.

via Victorinox introduces Secure Pro Swiss Army knife model with up to 32GB USB drive | The Toybox | ZDNet.com.

U.K. Court Allows Extradition in KBR Bribery Case (Update1) – BusinessWeek

Jeffrey Tesler, a British lawyer wanted by Houston prosecutors over allegations he helped bribe Nigerian officials to win contracts in a $6 billion natural gas project, can be extradited to the U.S., a London judge ruled today.

District Judge Caroline Tubbs ruled that the case is appropriate for extradition. Tesler’s lawyers had said he shouldn’t be extradited because the case has “strong links” to the U.K., and British prosecutors are carrying out their own investigation.

Tesler and another U.K. citizen were indicted on Feb. 17 last year by a federal grand jury in Houston, accused of violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. If convicted of all charges, each faces a maximum prison sentence of 55 years.

via U.K. Court Allows Extradition in KBR Bribery Case (Update1) – BusinessWeek.

Toothless No More? FSA’s Sweep Sends Signal on Insider Trading – Law Blog – WSJ

On Tuesday, U.K. authorities arrested six men—including an employee of U.S. hedge fund Moore Capital Management, another from Deutsche Bank and a third from a company affiliated with French bank BNP Paribas — in what the government billed as a major crackdown on insider trading in London’s financial center.

According to the Journal reports, it was a big and well-coordinated crackdown, the type you’ve seen in movies, with agents fanning out to a whole bunch of addresses at dawn. Some 143 agents from the Financial Services Authority and the Serious Organised Crime Agency moved across London and southern England Tuesday to arrest the suspects at their homes and to execute search warrants.

The FSA, the U.K.’s primary regulator of financial institutions and markets, trumpeted the insider-trading case as its largest ever.

via Toothless No More? FSA’s Sweep Sends Signal on Insider Trading – Law Blog – WSJ.

Offshoring legal services from London to Israel, although it might be hard to tell

A firm in England, with all the outward trappings of what in the United States would be a white-shoe law firm (elite office location, phone number, resumes, spiffy website) and regulated as a law firm, actually bases nearly all its 14 lawyers in Jerusalem. Asserson Law Offices, as described in Law Bus. Rev., Winter 2009 at 64, pays its lawyers at top Israeli rates, “less than half of the London equivalent.” According to the article, “the savings from the ‘salary arbitrage’ is passed on to the client” (See my post of Nov. 27, 2007: LPO in Israel.).

The point made is that clients have no particular care where legal work is done, only that it is done competently and efficiently.

via Law Department Management: Offshoring legal services from London to Israel, although it might be hard to tell.