Symantec buys encryption specialist PGP for $300M – BusinessWeek

Image representing Symantec as depicted in Cru...
Image via CrunchBase

Symantec will acquire encryption specialist PGP and endpoint security vendor GuardianEdge Technologies for US$300 million and $70 million, respectively, the company said on Thursday.

Both are privately held companies. Symantec said the deals are subject to regulatory approval but are expected to close by June.

Symantec said the companies’ combined specialties in standards-based encryption for e-mail, file systems, removable media and smartphones will complement its security offerings, such as its gateway, endpoint security and data-loss prevention software.

Encrypting information offers a higher level of security in case data is lost or stolen. Earlier this month, the U.K. increased the fine under the Data Protection Act for organizations that lose data to a maximum of £500,000 (US$765,000).

via Symantec buys encryption specialist PGP for $300M – BusinessWeek.

LinkedInPinterestEvernoteWordPressBlogger PostEmailShare

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
LinkedInPinterestEvernoteWordPressBlogger PostEmailShare

UK bribery law escalates business risk of regional companies – Business Intelligence Middle East

The UK Bribery Act, enacted in the United Kingdom on 8 April 2010, is one of the most significant issues to affect businesses and increases the risk of doing business for regional companies.

The law applies not only to British nationals and UK companies but to any commercial organisations even if they carry on only “part of a business” in the UK.

Under the new rules, companies with UK operations will be criminally liable for bribery and corruption in their business, supply chain or sales channels irrespective of where the bribery offences take place.

The bribe does not need to be directed at a government official, the provision is triggered even if the bribe relates to business activities amongst private entities.

The law creates a new strict liability offence for any commercial organization which has a “close connection” with the UK for failing to prevent bribery, with the defense of showing that it has adequate (anti-bribery) procedures in place.

This is without any requirement for the prosecuting authority to show that any directors or partners were directly involved in the crime.

The maximum jail term for bribery is now 10 years and companies convicted will also face unlimited fines.

Although some of its features are similar to the US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), this law is likely to have a bigger impact on regional businesses.

It uses UK standards of what constitutes bribery and disregards local custom and practice, unless the practice is permitted by written law. Unlike the FCPA, it also makes no allowances for small facilitation payments consistent with local culture.

via UK bribery law escalates business risk of regional companies – Business Intelligence Middle East – bi-me.com – News, analysis, reports.

LinkedInPinterestEvernoteWordPressBlogger PostEmailShare

GE, Sony, Nvidia said to be part of Justice Dept. probe – The China Post

The U.S. Justice Department has questioned General Electric Co., Sony Corp. and Nvidia Corp. as part of a probe into the technology industry’s recruiting and hiring practices, according to a person familiar with the matter.

Authorities are examining whether companies secretly agreed to not recruit or hire each other’s employees, an antitrust violation that could deprive workers of higher salaries, said the person, who requested anonymity.

The disclosure that officials at the three companies have been questioned indicates a wider investigation than was previously known publicly. The Wall Street Journal has reported that the investigation also involves Intel Corp., International Business Machines Corp., Google Inc., Apple Inc. and IAC/InteractiveCorp.

Collusion of this sort “would hurt the workers” and give consumers “fewer choices,” said Robert Lande, a law professor at the University of Baltimore. Besides depressing wages, such an agreement may stifle innovation, he said.

The Justice Department hasn’t determined whether any company violated the law, said the person familiar with the matter. Investigators are still following up on leads from their discussions with the firms and examining several time periods, the person said.

via GE, Sony, Nvidia said to be part of Justice Dept. probe – The China Post.

LinkedInPinterestEvernoteWordPressBlogger PostEmailShare

ICC announces revision of arbitration costs

The International Chamber of Commerce has announced a revision of its current arbitration costs and fees. The change will become effective on 1 May 2010 and apply to all arbitrations commenced on and after that date.

The revision does not change ICC’s traditional method of calculating administrative costs and arbitrators’ fees on the basis of the amount in dispute. However, the rates applicable to each ‘slice’ of the amount in dispute have been adjusted. An increase averaging 0.14 of a percentage point has been applied to most slices. At the top end of the scale, a new slice has been added to distinguish between cases valued at US$ 100–500 million and those over US$ 500 million. In the latter cases, a flat rate of US$ 113,215 will be charged for administrative expenses and arbitrators’ fees will be calculated using rates that are the same, or slightly less, than before. The initial payment required when filing a request for arbitration has been raised from US$ 2,500—the level at which it has been held since 1998—to US$ 3,000.

ICC Arbitration costs were last revised in January 2008. Since then, the global economy has suffered a period of exceptional and unforeseen instability. The volatility of the financial markets has created a situation of great unpredictability, not least for the ICC Court. The Court’s revenue is in US dollars, but most of its expenditure is in euros. The increase in the levels of its administrative expenses will allow the Court better to withstand the impact of these developments and to maintain the quality of service for which it is recognized worldwide.

via Arbitration.

LinkedInPinterestEvernoteWordPressBlogger PostEmailShare

World Intellectual Property Day | The White House

In recognition of World Intellectual Property Day, the US government is engaging in activities all over the world to highlight the importance of intellectual property and our commitment to protecting it.

Our law enforcement agencies, the Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security, announced today the formation of a national network of law enforcement personnel.

The Department of Justice announced that the FBI is increasing its manpower that focuses of IP significantly, by creating regional IP squads in major cities around the nation and adding an additional 20 new agents to those squads.

In addition, the DOJ announced that it will be adding 15 new prosecutors throughout the country to add to its current force of 200 prosecutors specially trained to handle IP enforcement.

In collaboration, the Department of Homeland Security announced that its multi-agency IPR Center is creating partnerships with 70 federal, state and local law enforcement in 22 cities to collaborate on IP enforcement actions.

And ICE announced the efforts of a major sweep – Operation Spring cleaning – that resulted so far in 45 arrests, the seizure of 701,384 counterfeit items valued at $44 million.

Many other agencies that also work on IP enforcement are joining this united effort.  Secretary Clinton and Secretary Locke and Ambassador Ron Kirk are issuing statements highlighting the importance of intellectual property. There are also a numbers of events taking place today where senior government officials are speaking on intellectual property, including Ambassador Miriam Sapiro of USTR at the National Press Club, Under Secretary of State Robert Hormats at the US Chamber of Commerce. I will be speaking at an event with the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee John Conyers, the head of USTR, Ambassador Ron Kirk, the head of our US Patent and Trademark Office David Kappos and other senior Commerce officials, including Under Secretary Francisco Sanchez.  And embassies throughout the world are reaffirming those same sentiments in statements issued by their ambassadors and in a number of educational programs they are holding.

The President has made clear that strong enforcement of America’s intellectual property is a critical part of our plan to promote exports and create jobs.  I look forward to continuing our dialogue and utilizing the expertise out there to harness and protect what has always been one of America’s greatest strengths – the diversity of great ideas.

via World Intellectual Property Day | The White House.

LinkedInPinterestEvernoteWordPressBlogger PostEmailShare

Changes Coming: FCPA, Bribery Bill and OECD-Part III | Thomas Fox – JDSupra

At its April 7, 2010 meeting the United States Sentencing Commission approved amendments to its Sentencing Guidelines. The next day on April 8, 2010, the UK Bribery Bill received Royal Assent. These two events follow the December 9, 2009 release by the Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development’s (OECD) Recommendation for Further Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials, when the OECD marked the tenth anniversary of the entry into force of the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention.

These three releases, which comprise of two changes in the legal schemes by two of the world’s largest economic players and the proposal of one of the largest Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO) dedicated to ending corruption across the globe portend significant changes in how companies will be structured and transact business going forward in the new decade. This is the third and final of three postings which have discussed the changes that companies, with any US or UK presence, will be required to implement. In the initial post we considered the changes to the US Sentencing Guidelines; we then discussed the changes required by the UK Bribery Bill; and in this third and final post in this series, we will end with the recommendations regarding facilitation payments as found in the OECD’s Recommendation for Further Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials.

via Changes Coming: FCPA, Bribery Bill and OECD-Part III | Thomas Fox – JDSupra.

LinkedInPinterestEvernoteWordPressBlogger PostEmailShare

Is the UK heading for US style litigation? | Evolution Legal

With the news that Lord Justice Jackson’s recommendations for small value road traffic accident injury claims are going to be implemented in England & Wales on the 30th April 2010, questions must be asked as to whether his recommendations are driving UK road users further down the path of US litigation methods.

Until 2001, if you had been injured in a road traffic accident (RTA) you simply made arrangements with a Solicitor to obtain compensation on your behalf. The question of costs was very rarely mentioned as it was an unspoken truth that the Solicitors expected to recover their costs in full from the negligent driver’s insurance company.

When Lord Woolf reformed the framework surrounding compensation claims in 2001, the system of No Win No Fee (NWNF) was introduced, which in theory allowed claimants to bring claims without the fear of accumulating large legal costs bills if they lost the claim, thus providing access to justice to individuals who previously may have been put off from claiming.

This access to justice was protected by the issuing of what was known as After the Event Insurance (ATE), an insurance policy that guaranteed that the legal costs would be paid in the event of the claim not succeeding.

In legal circles this type of arrangement is governed by a Conditional Fee Agreement (CFA) which in layman’s terms basically means, that the lawyer agrees to take the clients case on, work for free for the duration of the claim, irrespective of the length of the case, before ultimately getting paid their costs on a fixed fee regime, with the possibility of achieving a success fee, if indeed the claim succeeded (therefore the fees are paid conditional upon success in the case!).

Quite were this system of accessing legal services and obtaining compensation came from is a bit of a mystery now in 2010, although I’m sure that at the time it made some sense. In any event the system was introduced and has been utilised for 9 years until now, albeit utilised in what can only be described as a battlefield, as claimant lawyers and insurance lawyers have knocked lumps out of each other arguing as to the rights and wrongs of the system.

This battle has raged for 9 years and has now led to a further change in the legal framework surrounding these claims, from Conditional Fee Agreements (CFA’s) to Contingency Fee Agreements (COFA’s).

In the newly proposed regime, the claimant will now have to commit to giving his lawyer a percentage of his recovered compensation to contribute towards the lawyers costs in the event of a successful claim.

So if £2000 is recovered on a 20% COFA, the lawyer will deduct £200 from the compensation award to contribute towards their costs of acting for the client. This process is widely used throughout the United States and has been for very many years.

via Evolution Legal.

LinkedInPinterestEvernoteWordPressBlogger PostEmailShare

Changes Coming: US Sentencing Guidelines, UK Bribery Bill and the OECD on Facilitation Payments | Thomas Fox – JDSupra

At its April 7, 2010 meeting the United States Sentencing Commission approved amendments to its Sentencing Guidelines. The next day on April 8, 2010, the UK Bribery Bill received Royal Assent. These two events follow the December 9, 2009 release by the Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development’s (OECD) Recommendation for Further Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials, when the OECD marked the tenth anniversary of the entry into force of the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention.

These three releases, which comprise of two changes in the legal schemes by two of the world’s largest economic players and the proposal of one of the largest Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO) dedicated to ending corruption across the globe portend significant changes in how companies will be structured and transact business going forward in the new decade. This article will discuss the changes that companies, with any US or UK presence, will be required to implement. The initial post will be on the changes to the US Sentencing Guidelines; we will then consider the changes required by the UK Bribery Bill; and we will end with the recommendation as found in the OECD’s Recommendation for Further Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials.

via Changes Coming: US Sentencing Guidelines, UK Bribery Bill and the OECD on Facilitation Payments | Thomas Fox – JDSupra.

LinkedInPinterestEvernoteWordPressBlogger PostEmailShare

US Foreign-cubed securities debate explained | Morrison & Foerster LLP – JDSupra

Last month, the United States Supreme Court heard oral argument on whether foreign-cubed securities class actions may be litigated in the United States.

The extraterritorial reach of the federal securities laws is the central focus of Morrison v National Australia Bank. Morrison is the third in a series of fairly recent Supreme Court cases reviewing the extraterritorial application of federal statutes, following the Court’s consideration of the reach of antitrust law in F Hoffmann-LaRoche v Empagran and patent law in Microsoft v AT&T Corp. In the former (a unanimous decision) and Microsoft (an 8-1 decision), the Court concluded that the extraterritorial scope of the federal antitrust and patent statutes was a matter for Congress to decide. In the face of statutes that were ambiguous or silent on the issue, the Court applied a presumption that United States law governs domestically but does not rule the world.”

via US Foreign-cubed securities debate explained | Morrison & Foerster LLP – JDSupra.

LinkedInPinterestEvernoteWordPressBlogger PostEmailShare