At Last, The Bribery Act 2010 Adequate Procedures Guidance is Here

This post was written by Rosanne M. Kay and Tom Webley.

The waiting is over! At last the UK Ministry of Justice has published guidance about procedures which commercial organisations can put into place to prevent persons associated with them from bribing. The Act will now come into force on 1 July 2011.

The guidance offers non-prescriptive procedures and commentary on the scope of the Act. As the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, Kenneth Clarke, said this morning in his statement on the publication of the guidance "These are quite tough rules. But what the guidance I am also publishing today underlines – after helpful consultation with businesses, and NGOs – is that combating bribery is about common sense, not bureaucracy."

At the core of the guidance are proportionality and risk assessment which should give comfort to those small and medium sized enterprises worried at the prospect of having to spend a fortune on putting in place complex, burdensome polices and procedures. Of limited comfort is the Secretary of State's indication that there will not be a large number of prosecutions and certainly not for trivial cases but these decisions are not his to make and will be decided by the Director of Public Prosecutions or the Director of the Serious Fraud Office. 

Click here for more information about the guidance.

UK Bribery Act - Guidance on Adequate Procedures to be published tomorrow and Act to be implemented in June/July 2011

This post was written by Rosanne M. Kay and Suzie A. Savage.

It is understood that the UK Ministry of Justice will publish its guidance on adequate procedures tomorrow, Wednesday 30th March 2011.

The Act was originally scheduled to be implemented in April of this year, three months after guidance was to be published in January about the “adequate procedures” firms should have in place to prevent bribery.  The Act will now apparently come into force in June/July 2011. 

Regulatory Round Up 3.24.11

Hey, Government Contractor: Don't Fret About the Next Federal Budget Stumbling Block; Prepare For It

This post was written by Lorraine M. Campos and Joelle E.K. Laszlo.

When prevention of an event is impossible, preparation is the best defense. This is certainly the case for federal contractors facing an impending Government shutdown. By the time this ‘blog entry is posted, the likelihood of such a shutdown should be clearer, as the House of Representatives votes today on the latest federal funding continuing resolution (“CR”). If the new CR is passed, federal operations will continue for another three weeks under its temporary spending provisions, while Democrats and Republicans continue to hammer each other, as they hammer out the 2011 federal budget.

If a new CR isn’t passed, and no budget miraculously materializes, the CR currently funding federal operations will expire this Friday, March 18th. At that point, federal agencies will be required to cease all but the most crucial operations. Such a federal shutdown will mean different things to different contractors, but even those who don’t stand to be severely or even marginally impacted in the short term would be well advised to take the time to consider the shutdown’s potentially broader implications. Reed Smith offers six recommendations to federal contractors preparing to weather the potential federal shutdown and emerge on solid ground – to read them, click here.

UK Bribery Act - timing is still unclear

This post was written by Rosanne Kay and Neil Donovan.

The UK Ministry of Justice (“MoJ”) official with responsibility for managing the implementation of the Bribery Act 2010 (“Act”) provided an update on the status and content of the revised adequate procedures guidance during a speech last Thursday. 

The speech covered the following:

  • Timeframe- according to the official, the delayed adequate procedures guidance will be published “as soon as possible” but set no specific date. There is still no information about when the Act will come into force but the MoJ has promised a three month gap between publication of the guidance and the coming into force of the Act.
  • Principles in the Guidance- the six guiding principles contained in the draft of the guidance released last year will remain but the revised guidance will differ “quite substantially” from the previous version.

The timing of the adequate procedures guidance and the Act remain unclear. The content of the guidance is also apparently in a state of flux. Nevertheless, companies who are waiting for the guidance to implement changes to their policies and procedures may wish to reconsider. It will almost certainly take most companies more than three months to plan and make changes and they may run out of time.

Regulatory Round Up 3.11.11

Ramped-Up Libyan Sanctions Impacting U.S. Business; More to Come

This post was written by Joelle E.K. Laszlo.

In response to the increasingly grave political, commercial, and humanitarian turmoil that Libya has endured in the recent weeks, the international community has combined forces in an effort to subdue Muammar Qadhafi’s brutal regime. The United Nations Security Council has called its Member States to enact, among other initiatives, trade sanctions targeted against not only Qadhafi and his close associates, but also against the entire Libyan Government.

In affirming this concerted stance against Qadhafi, President Obama put into force an Executive Order Blocking Property and Prohibiting Certain Actions Related to Libya (“the Order”) on February 25, 2011. The Order immediately blocks the assets of and prohibits the provision of goods or services (including humanitarian donations) to: the Libyan Government and its agencies, instrumentalities, and controlled entities; the Central Bank of Libya; and Qadhafi and those closely associated with him. The Order further provides for the blocking of assets of anyone determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State, to be a senior official of the Libyan Government; a child or agent of Qadhafi; a spouse, dependant child, or agent of any of Qadhafi’s children named in the Order; or in any way responsible for or materially involved in “the commission of human rights abuses related to political oppression in Libya.”

On the day the Order was signed, aside from adding the designated Qadhafi family members to the Specially Designated Nationals List (each with a sizeable list of aliases), the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) issued a general license authorizing transactions with Libyan Government –owned or –controlled financial institutions organized under the laws of a country other than Libya. On February 26th, the State Department’s Directorate of Defense Trade Controls announced the immediate suspension of all licenses it had issued for exports to Libya, and advised that no exemption in the International Traffic in Arms Regulations may be used to export defense articles and services to Libya until further notice (forthcoming in the Federal Register). Shortly thereafter, OFAC issued a second general license on March 1, 2011 authorizing the provision of and payment for goods and services to Libya’s diplomatic missions to the United States and the United Nations (limited to items to support official business and for employee personal use).

The Order, which actively blocks an estimated $30 billion, was described by the White House as “the most rapid and forceful sanctions” ever, and has already caused considerable commercial backlash. For instance, Morgan Stanley, in complying with the OFAC sanctions, has been left with no alternative but to entirely cease its operations in Libyan oil trade. Other members of the U.S. business community have expressed their concern and continue to seek authorization to provide measures of safety, welfare, and support of their employees and contractors who remain in Libya by paying their salaries and for other routine taxes, fees, benefits, goods and services associated with their employment. As developments with respect to Libya’s political and commercial climate become alarmingly unpredictable, investors and other potential stakeholders should remain aware of the situation at hand and should also exercise a heightened level of prudence, particularly with respect to transactions that may implicate the Libyan government or its agencies, instrumentalities or controlled entities.

Acting alongside the U.S, other nations and coalitions have recently demonstrated their united opposition against Qadhafi with sanctions of their own. A Reed Smith Shipping Alert addressing the measures taken by the U.S., the United Nations, and the European Union is available here.

This post was co-authored by Reed Smith Intern Henry R. Barnes.

FTC Brings Enforcement Action against Text Messaging Spammer

This post was written by Kevin Xu and John Hines.

On February 22, 2011, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) filed a complaint against Phillip A. Flora (“Flora”) for an operation that allegedly blasted consumers with millions of illegal spam text messages, including many messages that deceptively advertised a mortgage modification website called “Loanmod-gov.net.” The FTC is asking the court to shut down Flora’s operation and freeze his assets.

According to the FTC complaint, beginning on or about August 22, 2009, Flora transmitted or arranged for the transmission of at least 5 million spam text messages to random consumers. The text messages promoted products and services, including, but not limited to, loan modification programs and debt relief services. The text messages offered to help consumers obtain mortgage loan modifications and many of the messages state: “Homeowners, we can lower your mortgage payment by doing a Loan Modification. Late on payments OK. No equity OK. May we please give you a call? Loanmod-gov.net.” Consumers who visited this web address arrived at a website that touted itself as the “Official Home Loan Modification and Audit Assistance Information” beneath a picture of the U.S. flag. This website, although it included the term “gov” in its address, was not operated by or affiliated with any governmental entity. Additionally, Flora allegedly collected information from consumers who responded to text messages – even those asking him to stop sending messages – and sold their contact information to marketers claiming they were “debt settlement leads.”

The FTC charges that Flora violated the Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, which prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce, by sending unsolicited commercial text messages to consumers, and by misrepresenting that he was affiliated with a government agency. In addition, the FTC charges that Flora violated the CAN-SPAM Act by sending consumers spam text messages that failed to include a way for consumers to “opt-out” of future messages and failed to include the physical mailing address of the sender, as required by the CAN-SPAM Act.

The outcome of this case, which we note is being brought by the FTC and not the FCC, may have a significant impact on consumer data privacy rights in the mobile communications sector, and may serve as a watershed case for consumers’ potential recourses in future privacy violation situations arising from mobile communications.

When Ambiguity Can Mean Criminal Indictment: the FCPA and the Case of Establishing the Elements

This post was written by Anne E. Borkovic.

As everyone can cite, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”) in part prohibits offering or providing anything of value to a foreign official to obtain or retain business. But what does that mean in practice? Two federal courts are grappling with defining “foreign official” and, in turn, whether the prosecution can establish all the elements of a violation.

In U.S. v. Stuart Carson et al., defendants moved to dismiss and argued that the officers and employees of state-owned companies are not “foreign officials” because the companies are not instrumentalities, departments, or agencies of the foreign government. The FCPA Professor Mike Koehler filed a declaration in support of the motion, detailing the legislative history of the FCPA and the “foreign official” element. A hearing on the motion is set for March 21.

In U.S. v. Enrique Faustino Aguilar, defendants also moved to dismiss under the same argument and have asked the judge to take judicial notice of the Carson declaration.

Of course, we will keep you apprised of developments as the Courts decide this important issue.

Ban on internet sales not necessarily illegal says European Advocate General

This post was written by Edward S. Miller.

The Advocate General of the European Court recently issued an opinion in a case referred by the French court regarding distribution of Pierre Fabre cosmetics. In its agreements for the distribution of its Avène, Klorane, Galénic and Ducray brands, Pierre Fabre had included a clause banning its distributors from selling on the internet.

The Opinion of the Advocate General (click to access the English and French versions) is interesting in that it takes a somewhat more flexible approach to an absolute ban on internet selling in a selective distribution agreement than might otherwise have been expected. In particular:

  • The French Court had been concerned that a ban on internet selling would constitute a "hardcore restriction" - in particular, because it seemed to constitute a restriction on active or passive sales to end users in a selective distribution system. The Advocate General underlined that the concept of a "hardcore restriction" is not derived from the Treaty, or even from the Vertical Restraints Block Exemption, but from the Commission's Guidelines on Vertical Restraints. Whilst, after examination of the agreement, including its economic and legal context, such a restriction might be found to constitute a restriction on competition by object, an individual examination of the agreement would always be required. In other words, the concept of a "hardcore" restriction is not strictly part of European law, and a restriction which has been classified by the Commission as a hardcore restriction needs to be examined like any other.
  • Pierre Fabre had argued that because its products had particular dermatological applications, the presence of a qualified pharmacist was required at the point of sale. As such, the products could not be sold via the internet. Fabre also argued that the internet sales ban was needed to reduce the risk of counterfeit sales. Whilst the Advocate General did not accept that the health reasons or risk of counterfeiting justified the internet sales ban in this case, he did say that it might be possible in other cases to justify a restriction on internet selling which did not go beyond what was necessary to achieve a legitimate objective. Again, the Advocate General is emphasising the need for an individual examination of each case, and rejecting the idea that a ban on internet selling will always be impossible to justify.
  • The Advocate General also considered whether an internet sales ban could be justified on the ground that it protected the image of the goods by requiring that they be sold in a physical space in the presence of a pharmacist. Again, the Advocate General does not reject this argument out of hand, and is of the view that it should be examined by the national court. Selective distribution by its nature permitted the imposition of certain restrictions for the purpose of protecting the image of the product. A restriction on internet sales which was proportionate might be justified as a way of protecting the image of goods under selective distribution, even though the effect might be to restrict parallel trade. A manufacturer could impose appropriate, reasonable and non-discriminatory conditions regarding internet sales to protect the image of its product and even an absolute ban on internet sales might be proportionate in very exceptional circumstances.
  • The Opinion provides some useful reminders of the necessity always to analyze restrictions on competition against basic principles rather than slavishly following published views of the Commission. The Opinion will please luxury brand owners by its nuanced views on the permissibility of restricting internet sales by selective distributors. It will be interesting to see what the Court makes of this Opinion when it hands down its judgment. The Advocate General’s implied underlining of the fact that it is the Court, rather than the European Commission which is constitutionally entitled to the final say may well find favor.
     

'Protection of Freedoms Bill' published - will 'common sense' prevail?

This post was written by Cynthia O'Donoghue and Nick Tyler.

Now that the UK Coalition Government has published its Protection of Freedoms Bill (the Bill) the big question is whether the proposed changes will achieve their objective “to restore the rights of individuals in the face of encroaching state power, in keeping with Britain’s tradition of freedom and fairness”.

Key aspects of the Bill will impact data protection and freedom of information:

Continue Reading...

Regulatory Roundup 3.4.11

 

Asian Data Privacy Update

This post was written by Cynthia O'Donoghue.

Asian countries continue to focus on developing their data protection legislation.

The Philippines Congress recently finished its second reading of House Bill 1554 which will introduce a unified and special law relating to data protection and privacy. Singapore, which already has some sectoral laws and a voluntary data protection model code, is now calling for the introduction of formal data protection legislation for parliamentary debate in early 2012.

The Philippines draft bill seeks to establish fair practices and regulate the collection, use and protection of individuals’ private information as well as to promote the development of its business process outsourcing industry. Under the Filipino bill, businesses and government agencies would have to obtain an individual’s unambiguous consent to collect and use their personal data. The bill also sets out data breach notification requirements to the regulator and to affected individuals when there is a real risk of serious harm, including breaches that may enable identity fraud. The proposed bill defines personal information quite broadly as “any data that can be used alone or in conjunction with other data to identify an individual”, and provides additional protections for sensitive personal information. Under the bill, a national Privacy Commission would be created that has the power to implement and enforce data protection legislation, including the authority to impose civil fines for certain violations and to refer suspected intentional violations to the Philippines Government’s Justice Department for investigation and potential imposition of criminal penalties of up to three years imprisonment.

Continue Reading...

Ending Collective Bargaining Rights of Public Employees. Is this a Case of Cutting off your Nose to Spite your Face?

This post was written by Christopher L. Rissetto and Robert Helland.

Attention has been fixated on efforts in Wisconsin and other states as governors seek concessions from public employee unions in efforts to balance their budgets. Governor Scott Walker (R) of Wisconsin has gone the furthest, so far, by seeking to eliminate the collective bargaining rights of public employee union, prompting Democrats in the State Senate to flee the state to avoid that legislative body from reaching a voting quorum on the issue. If Governor Walker should eventually be successful, however, Wisconsin faces a potential grant issue it may not have initially anticipated: the potential loss of transit assistance it receives from the federal government. Federal law requires governing bodies receiving federal transit assistance to keep all the collective bargaining rights it had in place at the time that assistance began.

The attached client alert discusses the potential grant issue, who might be affected, as well as ambiguities and a possible fix.

SCOTUS: Corporations Do Not Have "Personal Privacy" under FOIA

This post was written by Paul Bond and Frederick Lah.

On Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court held that corporations do not have “personal privacy” under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”). The decision comes just one year after the decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. In Citizens United, the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 opinion, ruled that a federal law banning corporations and unions from financing political spending was unconstitutional. Many critics of the decision felt that the Court was treating corporations as individual persons, with First Amendment free speech rights. Many of those same critics were concerned that the Court was going to take another step in that direction with the AT&T case.

Instead, the Supreme Court ended up ruling that corporations do not enjoy “personal privacy” under FOIA. Back in 2005, a trade association representing some of AT&T’s competitors submitted a FOIA request for information submitted by AT&T to the FCC during an investigation for alleged overbilling. Under FOIA, federal agencies are exempt from disclosing law enforcement records which could reasonably be expected to constitute an “unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” While FOIA defines the term “person” to include corporations, it does not define the term “personal.” AT&T argued that it is a corporate citizen with "personal privacy" rights protected by the exemption and that it should therefore be protected from any disclosure that would embarrass it.

Continue Reading...