A shorter episode this week, in episode #47 Tom and I talk about the virtues of a free press, checkbook journalism, the effect of foreign law on US regulatory decisions, how to choose FCPA outside counsel, and more!
02:15: No enforcement actions this week, no new investigations
02:47: News Corp., phone hacking, the Leveson Committee, and we’re shocked, shocked, to find that there’s gambling going on in this establishment (wait, you mean that reporters pay for access?!). The intersection between the FCPA and a free press.
09:04: New law firm FCPA updates
10:36: if Germany says someone isn’t a government official, does that bind (or even influence) the DOJ?
15:25: law firm FCPA updates are too long, I argue
18:00: How to choose outside counsel for FCPA matters (Howard’s version)
26:37: Howard’s book comes out (okay, it’s Alexandra Wrage’s book; I just wrote a chapter).
27:43: New corporate disclosures (Qualcomm, Stryker, Schlumberger) show LONG investigations
32:11: Bistrong gets a recommendation of probation
34:17: The problem with sting cases
35:27: What’s a declination?
1:37: Halliburton’s settlement of the shareholder action
3:46: Halliburton messaging requirements
9:36: Halliburton’s audit personnel requirement
13:21: Back to the messaging requirements; should they have set the # of messages
17:54: Qualcomm opens an internal investigation (belatedly)
20:27: Is a Wells Notice something you must disclose
28:08: What happens (or should happen) when you get the first call from the DOJ & SEC
29:31: Are outside auditors going to lawyer up too?
31:46: Nordam penalized, but not too harshly
41:08: Noble executives Mark Jackson and James Ruehlen file their reply briefs
47:40: Do you have to know that what you’re paying is a bribe? To “willfully” bribe? How does that apply to facilitation payments?
57:25: I rant about tolling and the statute of limitations
I’m gaining respect for Mark Jackson’s argument that since he thought he was making a facilitation payment, he wasn’t acting willfully.
What should the DOJ take into consideration when deciding on a punishment?
I continue my rant from yesterday on gifts and hospitality.
Is the knee-jerk reaction “fire him” or “end the relationship with the third party” the right reaction? Not always. At least, not without thinking about it.
01:25: Many, many law firm “reports, reviews, alerts” etc. But is enforcement leveling out? And Miller Chevalier? Make a downloadable PDF, please.
08:28: Alcoa, Alba, and a publicized settlement offer
18:02: Chocolates and bribery. That is, the Orthofix case. And we get a full-on Howard rants starting about 28:13. And I get on a roll, and keep on it for a while.
36:55: Former Prime Minister of Israel Olmert acquitted of bribery. Ties into the US, and into the Sands investigation. How would this effect a US investigation?
In the middle of this: Tom leaves, Howard chokes, Tom returns.
41:44: Walmart, facilitation payments, and the (potentially premature) death notice for FCPA reform
42:19 starts the facilitation payments discussion. At 46:23, we start talking about the excellent China Law Blog, and Dan’s post from today. [Tom and I are in total agreement: you need to start reading China Law Blog, if you don’t already.]