Reform the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act | National Law Journal

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is lobbying Congress to amend the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act to lessen the financial burden on U.S. companies doing business in foreign countries. That burden has cost U.S. companies upwards of a trillion dollars and has made our nation less competitive in the world marketplace. Unfortunately, the most important amendment suggested by the Chamber is likely to make the problem worse. There is a better and simpler solution.

The FCPA is our nation’s effort to prevent companies from bribing government officials to secure business in a foreign country. Companies found guilty of paying bribes, or of failing to accurately describe the bribes in their financial records, have had to pay billions of dollars in fines and have faced the possibility of debarment from government contracts. Why so much money? Under U.S. law, companies are responsible for the acts of their employees even if management is unaware of the employee’s conduct. A typical scenario involves a company executive hiring a foreign consultant to help negotiate a contract with a particular ministry for the sale of a product or service. Unknown to management, the consultant’s fee includes a bribe to a foreign official.

Although intended to level the playing field, the FCPA has actually made it harder for U.S. companies to compete in the marketplace. Money that a company could have used to hire employees, build plants and market its products has been diverted to efforts to show that any illegal conduct was the act of a rogue employee.

If the bribe is uncovered, the company has no defense to criminal liability. Even though the bribe was not authorized by management, no one in management was aware of the bribe and the bribe was specifically against company policy, the company is criminally responsible. The only thing the company can do is try to convince the government not to charge it with a crime.

How does a company do this? Primarily by showing the U.S. Department of Justice that the company had a compliance program designed to prevent such conduct. Companies must evaluate their business environment to identify areas where unlawful conduct might occur. Such an evaluation must include an examination of the business culture of the foreign nation and even a boots-on-the-ground investigation of the company’s foreign partners or intermediaries. Companies must promulgate policies that detail permitted and prohibited practices, and employees must receive regular training on permitted practices and the penalty for noncompliance.

via Reform the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.

A Bad Day for Tort Reform, Georgia High Court Strikes Med-Mal Caps – Law Blog – WSJ

In the annals of the tort-reform movement, Monday, March 22, 2010 will probably not go down as one to be celebrated.

For starters, on Monday the world awakened to the reality of a new huge piece of legislation — the health care bill. And it’s a health-care bill without significant movement on medical-malpractice reform.

But the movement suffered another blow on Monday when the Supreme Court of Georgia struck down the state’s caps on pain and suffering damages in medical malpractice cases. The vote was 7-0. Click here for the opinion, here for the story, from the Fulton County Daily Report.

Chief Justice Carol W. Hunstein, in writing for the court, emphasized the separation of powers, that the state’s legislature had encroached on judges’ and juries’ turf. “The very existence of the caps, in any amount, is violative of the right to trial by jury,” she wrote.

The ruling follows a similar decision made last month in Illinois, in which the state’s Supreme Court held unconstitutional the state statute that placed caps on non-economic damages in medical malpractice cases. Click here for a writeup on the Illinois case from Illinois-Kent law professor Ralph Brill.

via A Bad Day for Tort Reform, Georgia High Court Strikes Med-Mal Caps – Law Blog – WSJ.

South Africa publishes issue paper on electronic evidence in criminal and civil proceedings | The Posse List – JDSupra

The South Africa Law Reform Commission has approved the publication of its Issue Paper on “Electronic Evidence in Criminal and Civil Proceedings: Admissibility and Related Issues” for general information and comment. The paper has attempted to draw attention to issues for law reform with regard to matters relating to admissibility of electronic evidence in criminal and civil proceedings. This preliminary research paper has set out to identify shortcomings in the evidential provisions of the Electronic Communications and Transactions (ECT) Act 25 of 2002. The closing date for comment is 30 June.

A recent survey of South African litigation practitioners revealed that less than 30% of documents produced during discovery or at trial are produced in electronic form, despite the fact that more than 90% of litigious documents are created electronically. In it’s 2009 year-end review of the world-wide electronic discovery software market, Gartner mentioned the growing need and demand of e-discovery software in South Africa. Many South African law commentators have discussed that current litigation practice falls short of best practice. All of these developments expalin the issuance of the issue paper.

via South Africa publishes issue paper on electronic evidence in criminal and civil proceedings | The Posse List – JDSupra.