http://www.fcpaprofessor.com/significant-dd-3-development-in-africa-sting-case A Forum Devoted to the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Wed, 01 May 2013 10:47:49 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.2 http://www.fcpaprofessor.com/significant-dd-3-development-in-africa-sting-case#comment-349 Mike Koehler Fri, 10 Jun 2011 19:47:06 +0000 http://fcpaprofessor.com/significant-dd-3-development-in-africa-sting-case#comment-349 I am not familar with all of the unique aspects of the devices you reference. <br /><br />You may be interested in the following article - one of the more comprehensive I've seen regarding the SEC's FCPA jurisdiction.<br /><br />http://meetings.abanet.org/webupload/commupload/IC935000/newsletterpubs/ABA_ICLC_Newsletter_May_2010.pdf<br /><br />As to the issue of the SEC's FCPA jurisdiction generally - a new trend is the SEC asserting jurisdiction over non-issuers - this was done in the Snamprogetti enforcement action as well as the Panalpina enforcement action. I am not familar with all of the unique aspects of the devices you reference. You may be interested in the following article – one of the more comprehensive I've seen regarding the SEC's FCPA jurisdiction.http://meetings.abanet.org/webupload/commupload/IC935000/newsletterpubs/ABA_ICLC_Newsletter_May_2010.pdfAs to the issue of the SEC's FCPA jurisdiction generally – a new trend is the SEC asserting jurisdiction over non-issuers – this was done in the Snamprogetti enforcement action as well as the Panalpina enforcement action.

]]> http://www.fcpaprofessor.com/significant-dd-3-development-in-africa-sting-case#comment-347 Anonymous Thu, 09 Jun 2011 14:00:21 +0000 http://fcpaprofessor.com/significant-dd-3-development-in-africa-sting-case#comment-347 On a jurisdictional note, if a foreign Company issues (1) Global Medium Notes or similar under Rule 144A, they are not an issuer under the definition of the FCPA although are subject to the Securities Act and are exempted from filing; (2) their QIB's are US finances houses; and (3) their management at various levels are US persons. Would the SEC and/or stretch/interpret the jurisdictional reach of the FCPA to account for corrupt acts committed by subsidiaries of the Company. Would it strengthen the agencies position if the Company had US subsidiaries? Could jurisdiction be achieved by acts committed by the US persons although would this be personal liability and not of the Company or is this enough to capture the Company? On a jurisdictional note, if a foreign Company issues (1) Global Medium Notes or similar under Rule 144A, they are not an issuer under the definition of the FCPA although are subject to the Securities Act and are exempted from filing; (2) their QIB's are US finances houses; and (3) their management at various levels are US persons. Would the SEC and/or stretch/interpret the jurisdictional reach of the FCPA to account for corrupt acts committed by subsidiaries of the Company. Would it strengthen the agencies position if the Company had US subsidiaries? Could jurisdiction be achieved by acts committed by the US persons although would this be personal liability and not of the Company or is this enough to capture the Company?

]]>