Tuesday, February 23, 2021
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is a federal agency responsible for promoting and enforcing consumer protection laws as well as fair competition in the markets. When they suspect an individual or organization violated a federal regulation under its purview, it will initiate an FTC investigation to determine whether civil or criminal charges are appropriate.
Finding out that the FTC initiated an investigation can be panic-inducing. Their regulations are incredibly complex. Without in-depth knowledge of how these investigations proceed, how to limit their scope, what defenses are available, and what is at stake, receiving word of a pending investigation can throw a wrench in even the most efficient and well-intentioned business.
Monday, February 22, 2021
The year 2020 witnessed a record level of $2.78 billion in corporate fines and penalties from enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). It also witnessed continued close cooperation by the DOJ and SEC with enforcement authorities in other countries, resulting in billions of additional dollars in fines and penalties by foreign enforcement authorities. These trends, which will likely continue and even expand in 2021, highlight the urgent need for companies to identify the key risk areas of FCPA exposure they face in their international operations, and to maintain compliance programs that work in practice, not just on paper. This is especially important for companies operating in or doing business with certain high-risk countries, such as China, India and Brazil, which may draw special attention from the DOJ and SEC because of recurring corrup
Monday, February 22, 2021
What Happened: OFAC settled with BitPay, Inc. for $507,375 to resolve 2,102 apparent violations of multiple US sanctions programs for allowing individuals located in sanctioned jurisdictions to use digital currency on its platform to transact with merchants in the United States and elsewhere.
The Bottom Line: This is the second OFAC enforcement action against a digital currency services provider published in a two-month period. Companies providing digital currency services, like all financial service providers, should be aware of sanctions risks associated with providing such services. This action emphasizes the importance of developing and implementing tailored, risk-based sanctions compliance procedures sufficient to ensure that companies do not deal with blocked persons or engage in transactions prohibited by US sanctions.
Legal Disclaimer
You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review s (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC s Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.
Friday, February 19, 2021
Is the California Supreme Court about to make it more difficult to dispose of whistleblower retaliation claims? That may well be the case. The Supreme Court has agreed to answer the 9
th Circuit Court of Appeals’ question about California law and unlawful retaliation against an employee in
Lawson v. PPG Architectural Finishes, Inc. In particular, the 9
th Circuit asks the California Supreme Court to set the evidentiary standard for whistleblower retaliation claims brought under California Labor Code section 1102.5.
The
Lawson case involves a manufacturer of paint, stains, caulks, and other products. Mr. Lawson was a territory manager whose duties included merchandising products to home improvement stores and ensuring that the company’s displays were stocked and in good condition. Mr. Lawson was allegedly directed by his supervisor to handle a product in a way that fraudulently removed a slow-selling product from its inventory. Mr