Global Regulatory Enforcement Law Blog : Global Regulatory Enforcement Lawyers & Attorneys: Reed Smith Law Firm: Government Contracts & Compliance

This post was written by Debra Dermody, Gavin Eastgate, Katherine Mathews, William Sheridan, and Ariel Nieland.

The Federal Trade Commission has announced the annual threshold adjustments for premerger filings under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976 (15 U.S.C. § 18a) ("HSR"). The new thresholds will take effect February 22, 2010 and will govern all transactions closing on or after that date.

The new thresholds have decreased the dollar amount required to trigger HSR notification and waiting period requirements with respect to both the size-of-transaction and size-of-person tests.

To view the entire alert, please click here.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

This post was written by Lorraine Campos and Bob Helland.

Today, the United States Supreme Court issued a groundbreaking decision that impacts the political activity of every corporate entity. In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. ____ 2010, the Court held that restrictions on corporate spending in political campaigns, whether directed to a candidate or to an issue, violated the First Amendment's protection of political speech. This decision, which is expected to be applied to labor unions, 527s, and trade associations, will radically alter the role such organizations will play in elections. While the application of this decision will likely be subject to further regulation by agencies, including the Federal Election Commission, we address key elements of the decision and how it will impact the ability of corporations and others to express their opinions on issues or political candidates.

The Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United has three elements that impact corporate political activity:

• Lifted Ban on Direct Corporate Political Expenditures. Most surprisingly, the Court held that a prohibition on corporations from using their general treasury funds to pay for campaign advertisements for or against an (1) issue or (2) political candidate was unconstitutional. However, corporations are still prohibited from making direct political contributions to candidates or political parties.
• Lifted Ban on Electioneering Activities Within Close Proximity of Primary or General Election. The Court held that a prohibition imposed by the McCain Feingold Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 ("McCain Feingold') on "electioneering communication," i.e., those made by broadcast, cable or satellite, made within 30 days of a primary election or 60 days of a general election, was unconstitutional.
• Required Corporate Disclaimers. The Court held that a disclaimer requirement, also mandated by McCain Feingold, that identifies the corporation behind the advertisement was constitutional.

This decision upends the Court's precedent that corporations may not use their general treasury funds to support or oppose candidates, and radically transforms the political role of corporate entities. We anticipate additional regulatory guidance, and will be analyzing such guidance and providing assistance related to campaign donations, electioneering activities and disclaimer requirements.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

This post was written by George Brown. 

It is well over a decade since the UK government started a consultation process as to the future form of the law controlling bribery. A Bribery Bill was put to Parliament in 2000 but, as a result of criticism as to its content, the Bill was never enacted. The latest Bribery Bill was introduced to Parliament in November 2009 and is now at the Committee stage. The Government is keen to ensure that the law is enacted before the General Election although there will be some delay before the law is put into force after enactment.

To view the entire alert, please click here.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

This post was written by Chris Rissetto, Lou Naugle, Bob Helland, and David Wagner.

Last week, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") outlined what it terms a "rigorous accountability framework" for addressing pollution levels in the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries. This is the latest in a series of federal efforts to address levels of nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment in the Chesapeake Bay watershed that are harmful to both animal and plant life. Most significant about these measures is that they include, for the first time in the 26-year history of the cleanup effort of the Chesapeake Bay, a number of punitive measures intended to force compliance with pollution controls by the six Chesapeake Bay states—Delaware, Maryland, New York, Pennyslvania, Virginia and West Virginia—and the District of Columbia.

This update outlines the punitive measures being imposed by the EPA, including the legal issues raised. It also describes the regulatory regime in place to address pollution levels. This regulatory approach was overhauled by the Obama administration in Executive Order 13508: Chesapeake Bay Protection and Restoration, dated May 12, 2009. This Executive Order, and the Draft Strategy proposed by the EPA that followed it, outlined a new strategy for cleaning up the Bay, including the punitive efforts announced this week. Finally, this update discusses what measures are expected in 2010.

To read the full client alert, please click here.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link